I appreicate your thoughts on all this! I also find the "what is to be
cured" question, and also the meaning (and lack of meaning) of the term
"constitutional" intriguing and important questions, for many reasons.
Without saying or pretending or feeling that I have any final answers on
these (God forbid!), but I've thought a lot about them, and would be
interested in your (and others') thoughts on my thoughts below.
You wrote:
Yes, me too! I see many reasons why "what is to be cured" has been a
confusing question. One simple reason has to do with Hahnemann's
descriptions in Organon and Chronic Diseases. In the Organon he gives us a
description of "health" (that beautiful bit about the "admirable, harmonious
operations, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our
indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy
instrument for the highed purposes of our existence.") Based on that, our
goal is to "cure" anything that prevents the person from being fully happy,
harmonious, useful, even spiritual -- or so it sounds to me!
But then later, he directs that we prescribe based upon changes from "the
former, healthy state". (Now that implies that there *was* formerly a
healthy state...)
"Treat the disease" prescribing seems to me to follow from the second
direction, and is appropriate for acutes, acute exacerbations (maybe),
traumas, and (I suppose) local prescriptions. But "treat the patient",
more "global" prescribing follows from the earlier definition of "health".
The two give *different* views on "what is to be cured"! So I suppose it's
not surprising that different homeopaths have gone different ways in their
understanding. (As mother of a child who never *had* a healthy state before
homeopathy, I always had a *LOT* of trouble with that direction. How do you
treat someone who's never been "healthy", and/or whose presenting complaints
date from birth? How do you treat a state/weakness for which you can't
identify a beginning? The answer, of course, comes in Chronic Diseases --
you'll treat miasmatically (later if not sooner), and you choose symptoms
based on the patient's deviation from what you *assume would* be their
"healthy state". (Ah, that slippery slope of "assuming" and "judging"!)
Which leads to...
It *might*, but I agree that it won't necessarily.
"Liking" sweets is within a normal range, and not incompatible with good
health and might not enter into your analysis; *craving* sweets is a
different matter and might well be a prescribing symptom, depending on what
"level" your prescription is to be aimed at (recent, acute, local etc.,
versus chronic/"constitutional). If the headache springs directly from the
same causes that give rise to the cravings, then you might *have* to treat
that deeper layer to relieve them. And if the headaches are chronic, you
*will* sooner or later run up against what Hahnemann describes in Chronic
Diseases -- where acute, presenting-picture based remedies will be
successful in the *first* episodes, but will become progressively less
successful, until finally you will *have* to go beyond presenting picture
and treat the broader picture (miasmatic).
I don't have enough experience to verify this personally, but I find it hard
to imagine how/why some homoepaths have written off the entire miasmatic
theory (and evidently the entire Chronic Diseases?)...
(For curiosity, can you do "presenting picture only" prescribing and *also*
treat miasmatically? Maybe, if one is a lot cleverer than I am with materia
medica, but I don't know. Joy???)
Yes, I also am taught that any changes in generals (e.g. food preferences)
during or before an acute are important for prescribing.
Agreed! But "disease" can mean different things -- local/recent disease, or
chronic disease; named disease or "remedy picture" disease ("my headaches"
vs. "this nat-m state"). Sometimes a local/recent disorder can be cured
separately from "the rest of the case" (aka "constitutional"), and sometimes
it can't; sometimes it can be *at first*, but will keep returning unless the
underlying imbalance is treated.
Is this also in line with your understanding, or have you learned something
different?
That sounds good to me. The "constitutional" *remedy* doesn't need to cover
the person's healthy traits, or idiosyncracies that have no ill effect on
health, so I would agree with you that we don't really mean "the sum total
of all of that person".
Me either, tho I've certainly seen cases presented or talked about that seem
to suit that. Eizayaga lists it as something that sometimes occurs. (The
"lifetime" prescribers hold it out as a goal for every case, but no one here
seems to have been familiar with that approach and I can't understand it...)
*But* it is often enough true that if you treat the underlying state, then
more minor troubles that followed from that will be eliminated, even if they
are not apparently covered by the remedy that was given. Again I say this
not from personal experience, but just parroting
what I was taught.And it makes sense to me. Thinking by analogy: If I have a child who's
troubled by a bully, perhaps I can give him tips on handling that particular
bully, and perhaps be successful. But if I am able instead to give him
better understandings about human nature, self-respect, sense of humor,
etc., then the trouble with that particular bully may just evaporate without
needing to be separately addressed. Similarly, when the body gets "tuned
up" by a well-chosen deep remedy, many small problems will evaporate. I
would guess that many or most successful "constitutional" prescriptions have
"side-effects" of this sort, where various small troubles clear up even tho
they may not be directly covered in the remedy picture. (Only my
guess/assumption.)
I see no problem with this. Maybe one or the other was her
"constitutional", or maybe her "constitutional" state changed after the
first and became the second; or maybe her deeper state is still untouched.
Can't tell from here...
But yes! And that can be addressed from broader or narrower perspectives,
and will *need* different approaches in different instances. I *firmly*
believe it's not that "'treat the patient' is the right approach"; OR
"'treat the disease' is the right approach"; or that "lesional" prescribing
is "right"; or that "Kentian" is right -- I firmly believe that each of
these approaches (and others) will be the *best* approach for a certain
number of cases, and most well established approaches can be made to work
for most cases. I firmly believe it's in the best interests of our patients
to have at least some familiarity with -- and respect for -- these different
approaches, so that if our usual approach isn't working, we have the
possibility of branching out (or referring) to a different approach.
"One-size-fits-all" is not an principle that Nature has used much, and
neither did Hahnemann, for that matter.
Well, only if you mean "characteristics *of the disease*"; or am I
misunderstanding?
I don't think it's a rant!
I appreciate your thoughtful input, as always!
Best wishes,
Shannon