Homoeopathy is an exact science. Yet…..
The problem with casetaking is that it requires accurate skills in observation. It requires a human to note and assess the symptoms, a human to make a judgement call on what he or she sees, and on this collection of data a remedy is selected.
I believe that the principle of homoeopathy never fails, only the homoeopath.
On Sunday the 24th of April at 5pm, Manuel and I met with a young mother whose 11 month old daughter had a high fever (40C) which had not resolved under Pulsatilla, Mercurius or Sulphur. These well indicated medicines failed to touch the situation.
The mother of the child has been a patient of Manuels for nearly 30 years since being a little girl herself. The family was opposed to homoeopathy so there was a little pressure on us to get it right.
So the symptoms were that the child had burning heat with no perspiration. The heat was centred on the chest and the temples. Huge thirst with the fever. There was a mild cough with some mucus.
The child was sleepless but extremely sleepy, restless and would only sleep when totally tired. She would wake into an aggravation and then go back to sleep again. Her hands were cold.
Manuel and I independently came to Phos. I was not happy with that prescription. So I sat back and observed.
The child was placed on the table at one point and began to cry. I felt the table and being a glass surface, was quite cold. I placed a cold object on the childs arm a little later and again the child began to cry.
I also noted that when the mother or grandmother picked up the child or moved its arms, the face registered discomfort as if the bones or muscles were sore.
What to do?
Well, I decided to trust my observations. So I repertorised on the following symptoms.
I knew that Rhus Tox had bone and muscle soreness, so I kept that in mind.
Was I confident in the prescription? Not 100%… I read quickly through all the remedies in the 5 choices and concluded that if my observations were correct, then Rhus Tox was the closest in symptoms.
At about 8 pm that evening, the mother contacted Manuel to say that the fever had gone down and the child was happier in herself.
The day after, (Today) all symptoms had gone except for a little mucous and cough but that was getting better also.
The unprejudiced observer -takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician.
It takes a lot of faith to trust in observation above clinical knowledge and the chatter of other peoples opinions. It takes a while for a clinician to accept that the organism via PATHOLOGY in the expression of a disease, will sometimes fly in the face of a known symptom that is opposite to what is known about the disease.
I believe that this observation is the true understanding of 153.
§ 153 Fifth Edition
In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.
I tire of the plethora of books, Materia medicas and so called homoeopathic experts who espouse the personality aspects of remedies. We do not treat personal preferences, traits or idiosyncratic natures of people, we treat pathological changes of states that are the results of disease.
Eighty something year old woman, generally in good health and very active in her local community providing bread and cakes for folk.
I received a phone call from a patient in the USA a couple of days ago. She is 12 weeks pregnant and suffering heavily with her seasonal allergies.
In homoeopathy, we often talk about the “state” of a patient. The phrase, as well at the reality is that the “state” of a person is actually the full picture of the disease.
She has been infected for 3 or 4 days. Mother showed the onset of the problem which she thought was an insect bite. Was now 3 small red spots filled with dried blood on the right chest. Further eruptions had occurred on her right back and on her right arm.
Clearly here Hahnemann is reiterating the fact that we are treating “disease”. Any other concept of treating the man and not the disease is False.
admin
Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)
Homoeopathic to the Disease State.
In order to match the genius of the disease with the genius of the remedy we then seek to rearrange and rank individual symptoms to better discern the remedial agent. Of the symptoms related or observed many may not particularly distinguish. What are some of these?
Pathological symptoms, so-called, indicative of the results of disease were described as ultimates by Kent. These evidences of tissue changes are helpful in diagnosis or prognosis, but because they are effects, not causes, they do not become of primary importance in pointing to a curative remedy. All processes have an origin, and it is their beginnings to which a similar drug pathogenesy may be comparable. Likewise in epilepsy, the remedy is not seem in the actual seizure, but rather in what has preceded perhaps long before.
Symptoms common to all cases of a certain disease are little indicative of a similar remedy. There is nothing here to be found individual and compelling our choice. Symptoms common to many drugs likewise do not stand out in the selection of a similar drug picture.
Symptoms due to drugging, or improperly chosen remedies, or too early repetition do not present the individual nature of the disease as manifested in the changed state and hinder differentiation. Again the long list given by a hysterical patient is difficult to value.
The predominating “my” symptoms in reference to particular parts of the body also belong in the class of lesser values, unless these are striking, or becoming general because they are similarly evidenced throughout the various parts of the patient. Particulars rarely distinguish the individual and to that extent are weak in value.
So are common symptoms, such as loss of appetite, headache, exhaustion, discomfort, etc., often indefinite and therefore not to be emphasized unless qualified further to really individualize the case.
What symptoms, then, stand forth, compelling and of major rank, pointing more directly toward what is essential for cure? A consideration of homoeopathic philosophy antedates proper symptom valuation. Very briefly, it is not the body of man that expresses disease, but the reaction of his vital force against invasion. Nature’s response is in the way of symptoms experienced through sensation, etc. Individualization means the reaction to any morbific agent as evidenced in the patient under our care. When this is clear to the prescriber, there is no thought of remedies based other than on the patient himself. Not the present symptoms alone, but those detectable from birth, show the conflict which has harassed the inner real life in its bid for mortal existence.
Ray W. Spalding MD
1 Comment
Posted in Admin Comment, case-taking
Tagged case-taking