Homoeopathy in pregnancy

[mohajer]

Hi all
I must have treated at least a thousand pregnant women both constitutionally
and otherwise during pregnancy. I have never seen any bad effects. In fact
the reverse is true. Those who took medicine during pregnancy gave birth to
healthier children.
Just a warning avoid giving Pulsatilla at all costs till the fifth month. I
know many times Puls is indicated in the beginning months for some or the
other acute condition but it is not a safe drug during pregnancy.
best regards
Elham
PS: I don't remember who it was, maybe Clarke or burnette, who used to give
sulph 30 one month then thuja thirty the second month and Merc. 30 the third
month. I have never tried it and I don't recommend it to anyone, but there
are doctors who give this treatment to women who have given birth to weak
children before and they claim it helps a lot.

[Liz Lalor]

why about the puls? I thought it was a good remedy for threatened
miscarriage????

[Patricia Hatherly]

Dear all

Generally I find that constitutional treatment of the pregnant woman is a
straightforward matter and does not impact negatively on the developing
foetus.
I am aware of the warnings in our literature regarding Pulsatilla but have
occasionally prescribed it with no difficulty in the eary months.
However, I have vague memories of one of my teachers issuing a similar
warning regarding Bryonia and don't know of its source (anyone out there
heard of it being a "problem"?) Reason I'm asking is that I have one case of
having prescribed it accurately to a pregnant woman for a migraine in the
4th month. Her baby was born with a diaphragmatic hernia! to this day I
wonder if it was the remedy or co-incidence.

Also I can share another unusual instance regarding a mother who sought my
help in the second trimester of her 3rd pregnancy for rhesus
incompatibility.
She was a Jehova's Witness (does not agree with blood transfusions as part
of her religious practice).
She refused treatment during her second pregnancy and the baby was born
severely jaundiced and was in danger of dying. He was forcibly removed from
her by the government and transfused against her wishes. She did not want a
repeat of this instance and was wondering if homoeopathic treatment during
the pregnancy would prevent a re-occurrence!

On taking her case Sepia was decided upon as being the Simillimum. With the
warning in our literature regarding abortion in the 5th month with Sepia and
the rubric "indifferent to those loved best" I was hesitant to prescribe
lest her vital force "decide" that it would be in her best interests to
abort the foetus.
I had a frank discussion with her and her husband regarding all aspects of
the case (especially as I could give no guarantees and probably the best Rx
for the baby was Chel but the mother wasn't requiring that Rx at the time
and wasn't keen to wait until the birth to have the baby treated
homoeopathically).

They opted not to take a homoeopathic remedy and they had a successful
pregnancy with some allopathic innovative blood treatments that satisified
their religious beliefs.
I wonder to this day as to what might have happened and would appreciate any
thoughts on this one.
It's a good example of not being too prescriptive. There are, I believe,
some instances when we cannot make blanket assertions.

regards
Patricia Hatherly