Not-nux [was: Averse to limitations]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Robyn,

The only urinary symptom I recall him mentioning was the frequency which he
always had (but now including at night, which is new). But I'll ask whether
there's more.

I'm interested to hear that none of the rest qualifies as a "disorder".
Altho much of what I wrote was to give a sense of the person (which is the
way I was taught to prescribe), I have considered the high irritability to
be a symptom, and also the imperiousness and haughtiness (actually, I was
using the rubric "contemptuous", as that seems to include "haughty", but go
one step farther -- which he definitely does ("How can people be so
stupid?"). Also the dramatic nature I would have considered a prescribing
symptom -- not *necessarily* to address the BHP, but I started trying to
prescribe before that came on, to address the (trust me, it's extreme!)
irritability.

If there were no prostate problem, would you consider there to be nothing to
prescribe on?

Curious,
Shannon
on 3/31/03 7:36 AM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:

[Robyn]

Hi Shannon
I suppose, what I meant with my post was that, based on the way you presented the info, it seemed to me that he hadn't complained of these "personality" descriptions, but that yours and others knowledge of him led you to these. I know that I may be mistaken here, but that is the take I got from your post.
The query I would have would be, when he sat down in your room for his visit, what did he say he wanted fixed?

However, with benign prostatic hyperplasia, there are usually some quite distinct symptoms, which can be prescribed upon. On reading the pathyophys, the research indicates that they are not sure if it is caused by cell proliferation or lack of cell death but generally believe it to be cell proliferation. This being the case, Thuja may be an excellent choice, as it has the urinary symptoms that would be expected with this condition, and ................. to stretch myself into your post a little .................... it also has Irritability, haughtiness and impatience.

Regards

Robyn

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past" (Maurice Maeterlinck)

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Robyn,

Thuja does seem like one I should keep in mind.
While it's true that *his* only presenting complaint was nighttime
frequency, he was urged to my attention by his wife, who is *much* more
bothered by the irritability etc. And actually it was this (irritability)
that I had first started trying to prescribe for, before the BHP began.
He's aware that others consider his temperament a problem at times, and
seems very willing to have that (irritability) cured, if anyone can figure
out how! (Yet at the same time, *he* does not seem to find it troublesome.)

As far as using info and complaints of family members, Hahnemann does
recommend this as part of taking a full case. I have always been puzzled to
hear people say we should treat *only* what the patient asks to have
treated. I don't see how this is *possible* (at least once we move beyond
the sphere of injuries and local complaints), since if one always *knew*
what needed fixing in oneself, then each homeopath should be their own best
prescriber, no?

As for the BHP, I guess I need to read up on it in general, and then talk
more to him about his own symptoms.

Thanks for the thoughts!
Shannon
on 3/31/03 3:35 PM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:

[Robyn]

I'm not saying that what relatives/family have to say is not important as I see children with behavioural problems quite often, and I like to get the parents take on the problem first. From experience, when I get to meet the child, and listen to the child's version of behaviours and events, there is always discrepancy. I can think of quite a few examples of this, that would have influenced my prescribing quite considerably had I used the mothers info rather than the child's. It can be simple things such as the symptoms that are of importance to the child may be not the same ones that are high on the list for the mother.

I feel that if someone rings me up, and says that someone else in the family is causing problems or hard to live with, being the psychologist that I am I tend to see that as only indicators of possible problems, rather than conclusive evidence. I think that adults who are irritable, and lead loved ones to call for an appointment for them, may also be part of the problem. I usually won't see someone unless they call me themselves for the apointment (adults that is) and if it is a child, I insist in most cases on the child consenting to meeting with me, and then it is up to the relationship/rapport that is generated as to whether I can prescribe with integrity.

If someone is irritable, impatient, haughty etc., does not IMO necessarily demand a remedy! But if someone definitely is bothered by their own impatience, irritability and haughtiness, then I would definitely go for it.

This is quite a big area for discussion, and as you know I don't often get involved in discussions of this kind, usually sticking to info for others in my posts, but lately, I have found myself wishing to comment on some of the posts that take my interest.

Bye

Robyn

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past" (Maurice Maeterlinck)

[Rochelle Marsden]

Robyn wrote:-


How I agree with this!!The worst case I had was a man whose partner had made the appointment and he then sat there and replied to some of my questions "Write down whatever you want"!! He got Nat Mur and needless to say didn't return. Which brings me to a question. Has anyone else found in clinical practice that a male who has been given Nat Mur often reports that 'nothing has happened' but when you talk to the partner (this may even be prompted by the patient) she says how much more open he has been and less moody??!! I have even had males who I have given Nat Mur to open up for a few days and then close the gates again according to their partners. I am not being sexist as this is just my clinical experience which has not happened with females who I have given the remedy to. I think I need a Nat Mur +++ remedy in my arsenal.

Regards
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

With the part about not seeing someone unless they've made the appointment
for themselves -- I agree that it's better that way, but could not agree as
a blanket. E.g. this relative *is* a willing participant. And e.g. I make
all the appointments for my husband, because he never thinks to, and when he
*does* think of it, he asks me to do it. Dunno why.

Maybe the more important point is simply to make sure you have the patient's
willing participation, regardless of who made the appointment!

Rochelle, with your "write whatever you want" guy, maybe the thing to do
would have been chat with him about his reluctance to talk, ask whether *he*
wanted to be there or not, commisserate when/if he said he did not, and say
that really homeopathy is something you can only do "for" someone, not "to"
them, and if he ever *did* feel he wants your help, you'll be delighted to
give it a shot. That way you're on *his* side, rather than (in his eyes)
his wife's partner in his harassment!

Shannon
on 4/1/03 7:53 AM, Rochelle Marsden at rochelle@ntlworld.com wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Robyn,

Interesting points you bring out:

on 3/31/03 6:11 PM, Robyn at folco@tpg.com.au wrote:
Agreed, and I certainly didn't simply take her word for it! This is a
family member, so I have my own observation plus "family lore"!
You mean his wife may be part of the problem? Sure, she is. But his
irritability is not of her making, and not in her imagination.
He is working with me willingly (and patiently!), so I'm okay with the fact
that it wasn't his idea initially. If he were not willing, I would not be
doing this!
Well, I'm interested to hear that, as to me those things all do merit a
remedy (but okay, perhaps not "demand").

All of these terms describe states that are *by definition* different from
"a state of health". They are *by definition* different from Hahnemann's
lovely picture: "In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force
... rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in
admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and
functions..."

I just don't think this is in any way compatible with "irritable, impatient,
haughty, etc." Perhaps it's a judgment call, or perhaps it's prescribing
style. ??

I could not be content to let the patient be the decision maker as to what
needs curing. For many reasons:
(a) if they have always been the way they have always been, they don't
know any other way to be; a person will not ask for something he can't
imagine, or doesn't think achieveable!

(b) Trying to recognize your own traits is like trying to look yourself
in the face -- without a mirror. How can there be "objectivity" (as
Hahnemann directs) unless someone is "standing outside", forming a picture,
and comparing that with the (admittedly subjective) understanding of "a
healthy state"...

E.g. this man knows that others consider him irritable and etc., because
his friends and family joke about it with and in front of him. But to
*him*, I believe it simply feels as tho he is reacting the way *anyone*
would react, if they were in his shoes (and so they would -- if his shoes
included his body and mind and history!).

I always enjoy your comments, Robyn -- keep 'em coming! (Even if I might
not agree, LOL!)

Cheers,
Shannon