Medicine is a difficult thing to define. So many branches within the conceptual understanding of the name.
Many practitioners of homoeopathy erroneously think that homeopathy IS “medicine”, and the reality is that homoeopathy is a branch of medicine. The therapy has a well defined role to play in its application of therapeutics, but can only be effective within the boundaries of what it can cure.
Let me be very clear about my positional stance. I firmly accept that the law of CURE is answered in the Like cures like definition. The therapeutic approach of similars as defined by Hahnemann is the medical application of that law utilising substances that can produce symptoms that can be matched to symptoms that appear within disease states. Substances do NOT produce the disease itself. Substances produce SYMPTOMS. Substances have no personality or TYPE or affinity to human traits, they merely produce SYMPTOMS. There is no SULPHUR personality… only symptoms in disease that produce symptoms that require sulphur for a curative effect.
Homoepathy cannot be used in place of surgery. Sometimes the necessity for surgery can be removed by treatment with homoeopathy, but in general, where mechanical intervention is required, then a procedure will take place. Homoeopathy is useful in helping the post operative recuperation by aiding the immune system to work with focus.
Homoeopathy cannot replace the need for substances like insulin, but can reduce the volume required. I have seen this many times.
In an emergency situation of trauma, where time is of the essence and the immune system is not working, then primary care application of medicine and procedures must take precedence. Hahnemann recognised this:
A small dose of every one of them certainly produces a primary action that is perceptible to a sufficiently attentive; but the living organism employs against it only so much reaction (secondary action) as is necessary for the restoration of the normal condition.§ 67 Fifth EditionThese incontrovertible truths, which spontaneously offer themselves to our notice and experience, explain to us the beneficial action that takes place under homoeopathic treatment; while, on the other hand, they demonstrate the perversity of the antipathic and palliative treatment of diseases with antagonistically acting medicines. Only in the most urgent cases, where danger to life and imminent death allow no time for the action of a homoeopathic remedy – not hours, sometimes not even quarter-hours, and scarcely minutes – in sudden accidents occurring to previously healthy individuals – for example, in asphyxia and suspended animation from lightning, from suffocation, freezing, drowning, etc. – is it admissible and judicious, at all events as a preliminary measure to stimulate the irritability and sensibility (the physical life) with a palliative, as for instance, with gentle electrical shocks, with clysters of strong coffee, with a stimulating odor, gradual application of heat, etc.
With the advent of modern drugs that will stimulate and revive functionality, I have no problem in adding these to the list of times when emergency treatments are required.
As physicians/consultants/health advisors, we the practitioners have but one responsibility to the patient, that is their welfare. My experience and observation is that applying the law of similars is the best we can offer, yet times will arise when the organism will not respond to the application of the proven remedies to immune deficiencies or damage by drugs or other influences.
We must not be so single minded to ignore facts in our search for cure.
Homoeopaths require expressed and observed symptoms to prescribe. Without a single or multiple symptom or disease expression, we have nothing to base a prescription on. We need individual reaction to an infection. I am singularly frustrated at times when a patient comes to me in apparent good health without a solitary expression of disorder, and yet examination shows a tumour or life threatening change internally that is not reflected externally as a change in health. These type of disorders require a deep examination of the Materia Medica which may or may not yield a remedy to prescribe.
I have been called to situations where a prescriber has failed to aid elderly patients with confusion and weakness with well indicated remedies, and yet failed to to see that all that was required was a multi vitamin shot or to rehydrate the patient…. common problems associated with the aged.
I have seen prescribers show a complete confidence in prescribing low potencies for pathology and high potencies for other reasons, and yet on observation of the patient, I have observed major aggravations and effects of the remedies in the patient, some for long periods of time.
I have seen prescribers work to the “Herings law” in observation, only to wonder why a practitioner would ignore KNOWN pathological progression of an individual disease state ebb and flow and consider it a good sign?. (Hint: Hering NEVER made a law… yet another fallacy of the homoeopathic community.)
Practititioners ignore sound observed changes in favour of personality traits and emotions that (are NOT part of an altered pathology) and wonder why a patient does not improve…
I see daily repetition of medicines made (Even with LMs) with the practitioner ignoring aggravations and ameliorations in contradiction to Hahnemanns directions. This is especially concerning because too much medicine can cause a sensitivity in a patient and complicate matters.
Turn back to Hahnemann and learn the brilliance of his observations and advice on case taking, observations, applications of medicine and how to manage the case. It is the real homoeopathy. The only homoeopathy that works consistently.