Responsibility of recommending another homoeopath.

[annie summers]

I think Steve is right that we need to convince people that homeopathy is by far the superior system of medicine - its safe and effictive and better than allopathy!
Before I studied homeopathy I had no idea that there were different ways of doing it - and quite frankly would not have cared. I wanted someone to make me better. If I'd been presented with a register that described different methods of prescribing perhaps it would have made the task of chosing a homeopath even more confusing - or perhaps I would have chosen the one with the biggest list of 'methods'.
The general public are unaware, thank goodness, of the petty bickering that goes on between homeopaths. Why can't we forget our differences and promote homeopathy for the wonderful system of medicine that it is - however we do it?
Annie
---------------------------------
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger

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

[gracehealth4all]

Here, here, I couldn't agree with you more. Lets go for what is really
important.
Grace
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Grace and all,

While I applaus you for snipping excess before replying, it's awfully
helpful if you include a *bit* from the post you're replying to. For
instance here, I have no idea just what you're agreeing with, LOL!
Thanks,
Shannon
on 10/8/03 9:09 AM, gracehealth4all@aol.com at gracehealth4all@aol.com
wrote:

[Tricia Stephenson]

Well Done Steve and Annie! My sentiments entirely!
Tricia
Principal Homeopathic College of East Anglia.

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

I was hoping for a good debate by with thanks to colleagues who have
replied, I must say that none of you so far - apart from congratulating each
other - have answered my question. Yes we all know 'Homoeopathy Good,
Allopathy Bad', but that was not the question! And the idea is not to keep
the public ignorant of the differences. Ignorance has never benefited
anyone other than the crooked.

So that there is no doubt, I state the problem in perhaps more personal
manner:-
Your nearest and dearest is in town X in country Y. S/he is not well at
all. Even if it was advisable, you cannot attend to them.
You have access to a listing of Homoeopaths for Town X and Country Y.
How do you select a good homoeopath?

[Let us accept that there are good and bad in all professions.]

Let us also remind ourselves that Kent said that he would rather go into a
pit full of vipers than be treated by poorly trained homoeopaths. Do not
also forget that homoeopathy is safe in safe & well trained hands - that is
why we say to people you need to see a homoeopath, do treat yourself, nor
good to Boots (or other Chemist/Pharmacy shop) for the guy at the counter to
prescribe for you. I guess a few experienced colleagues have also seen the
results of someone by using remedies from a homoeopathic pharmacy completely
messing up a case - making them difficult to cure.

Are we implying that all colleges around the world (or even in the same
country) have the same standards? Do organisations like the Society of
Homoeopaths; ARH; UK Hom Med Ass etc ensure that the membership of the
Register is based on the highest common denominator of safety, good training
and practise?

If our training and ways of practising are poor our patients have no chance
of reaching the ideals of Aph 9.

Rgds
Soroush
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:52:32 +0100
From: "Tricia Stephenson"
Subject: RE: Responsibility of recommending another homoeopath.

Well Done Steve and Annie! My sentiments entirely!
Tricia
Principal Homeopathic College of East Anglia.

[Tanya Marquette]

allopaths must have concerns about poor practioners (from their perspective), but you would
never hear them imply this publicly. all you get are admonitions to use practitioners by
referral (which often means little). but that is the public wisdom.

the other end of their publicity seems to be getting articles in the press, taking out 'educational' ads,
and getting on mass media to talk about their issues.

today i was listening to a public radio station that does these health shows--2 of them today. one was
a call in show talking about vaccines--there have been a few whooping cough cases in the region and
the few kids who were not vaccinated are being focused on as if they are to blame. mind you the statement
was made that if one unvaccinated child get whooping cough, the infection rate in the vaccinated population
increases 90%. so what does this say about the vaccine--duh? the other show dealt with acid reflux
'disease.' this show hosted a medical doctor and half the show seemed to concern the different medicines
available to deal the issue. these are supposed to be educational type programs. they sounded more
like advertisements with the program supporting the medical profession despite their claim to neutrality/\.

we have a lot of work to do as a profession.

tanya
tanya

[Julian Winston]

At 4:33 PM +0100 10/9/03, Finrod wrote:

There is no way.
I know folks who have had success with folks I don't think highly of,
and folks who have had failures with the "best of the best."
You pick a name, you ask a few questions, you go look.
If it feels OK, go for it. If not, look elsewhere.
May I ask WHERE Kent said this? Please give the exact quote and
reference. I have not found any reference to vipers in Kent's writing.
Yes. I know that in NZ, the colleges here train to the same standard
as moderated by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. You must
maintain a certain standard to get the diploma. You must do a number
of cases to get on the register. And after that, there is still no
guarantee that client X will do well with practitioner Y.
That is up to each person. I'm sure every register has practitioners
on it that look OK on paper and couldn't see the characteristic
symptoms on threat of death.

JW

[Steve Scrutton]

I think that we have answered your question, Soroush. However, it may not
have been the answer you were looking for. I will repeat again that my
concern is that the public are aware the the homeopath they select to
consult are registered by a body that ensures that their members are fully
trained/qualified, are insured, and conform to an ethical code of conduct.
For the register to go into detail about their precise homeopathic beliefs
and practice would be too much for most people. One brilliant homeopath (in
my opinion), who did part of my clinical training, told me that I should
avoid giving my patients a lengthy description of homeopathy. She said,
rightly, that they don't usually want to know much about it - they just want
to be better. If they did want to know, they would ask.

Soroush, I fear that what you are saying is that there is only one way to
practice homeeopathy, and that you want to be sure that homeopaths should
only operate within this finely prescribed way. I think it was on this list
that we have all recently been berated by someone (I cannot remember his
name, I must have expunged it, just as I did most of his emails) who seemed
to hold this opinion. I know that you do not hold his views, and from your
many messages to this group, I fully respect your method of operation, and I
certainly have considerable admiration for your knowledge about health and
homeopathy.

The ARH, however, is not involved in this (nor is the S of H to any great
degree, as far as I am aware). Registration in the UK is about competency to
practice, not about the detail of how each one of us pracctices. I believe
that Homeopathy faces great dangers from the operation of the 'thought
police' that Albert (is that his name?) seemed so ably to represent.

It is, however, part of our shared heretage. In part this arises from the
honour and respect we pay to our past masters (quite rightly), but
sometimes, at least to some people, that seems to suggest that only if
Hahnemann (or Kent) said or did something does it represent legitimate
homeopathy. I suspect if both these masters were still alive and practising
today they would have moved on. I am sure that they would have encouraged us
to continue to think for ourselves, to develop, to keep up with the changing
times. Look no further than Aphorism 1 (The physician's highest and only
calling is to make the sick healthy, to cure, as it is called). This is how
Hahnemann prefaced AL:L his wisdom - and I am sure that it was meant to
underpin everything he subsequently wrote.

So if you tell me that there are people on the ARH register who does not
subscribe to this - then, and only then, will I worry. But I am sure that
there are no 'vipers' on the register - just homeopaths with whom I would
trust anyone's health before sending them to an allopath.

I am sorry if you do not agree - but then if we don't, that is healthy - and
I enjoy the debate!
Steve Scrutton
Registered Homeopath
Registrar - Alliance of Registered Homeopaths

"Homeopathy is a safe, gentle and effective medical therapy"

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

With the extent of your question, my answer would be that you would NOT know, unless you know the practitioner personally, or have been treated by him/her or have seen him/her work.

I guess what you are looking for is a kind of "Gault et Millaud" guide of homeopaths.........but then who would do the tasting and the judging?

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind""

[Julian Winston]

At 10:04 AM +1300 10/10/03, Dr. J. Rozencwajg. MD. PhD. wrote:

And even then...
During a "bad spell" I went to see three of the best homeopaths I
knew. I was under the care of each for at least six months. None were
of any help. And these were people I would unquestionably recommend
to anyone. They are all world class.
And the case was resolved by the fourth practitioner.

I once knew two docs, both quality homeopaths. And when asked for a
recommendation, I'd pick one over the other, depending on the person
who asked-- only because of their different "presentations." One came
across as a "white-coat doc" and the other came across like a
"new-age weirdo."

The practitioner/patient interaction is a very important piece of it
all-- be it allopathy or homeopathy.

JW