Ways of Practise - Was pls pls

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

I think Sheri has a very valid point. We must not mislead people at any
stage.

Some of the dangers have already been pointed out.

So far as I see it, Homoeopathy is an Art and a Science. You cannot easily
separate them apart.

Of course the object of the exercise is to find the correct remedy for the
patient. If you are that good that by the time the patient has sat down in
front of you, you know for sure what remedy they need at this stage, then
fine for you - but what if the choice is wrong. How does one unravel a case
which needed no records.
" The patient sat in front of me and I knew immediately that they needed X.
I knew so what is there to explain."

I am yet to see anyone who scores 100% with their first prescription. So a
couple of months later when nothing has happened perhaps, then I think the
story would be different.

Also if we read the Organon, Hn explains how the art and science should be
practised in Aph 3.

There are a great number of superb homoeopaths - they all build a reputation
for themselves. They seem to treat cases with success. However, when you
look at really what is happening, in some of the cases it is a bit like the
cancer statistics. The allopaths treat the cancer cases and if the cancer
does not return for 5 years, then statistically the case is regarded as
cured, if it arrives at 5 years and a week, it is still a cured case
statistically. That has no meaning in homoeopathy. Our cure MUST be
permanent. (Aph 2)

We need to differentiate among Cure, palliation and suppression.
My greatest worry is about those who knowingly or and unknowingly suppress.
That in my mind is the greatest danger in any practise and also the way some
colleges train their students.
Combo prescriptions are now on the rise and with great glee these people
come and say how the symptoms were quickly removed - yes and what of the
aftermath? Only silence? Before you defend such practises, you need to sign
a piece of paper agreeing that you yourself and your nearest and dearest
will be treated by such practitioners.
So is Sheri wrong in protesting against such a practise? In my mind she is
not! More power to her elbow.

Would I be correct in saying that some of the present colleges do not
discuss these issues in depth? How many of our colleagues have ACTUALLY read
the Organon from the beginning to the end even once but have written books
about how to practise homoeopathy? How many blind are leading more blind?

Someone pass the Bell pls, I need enlightenment!

Good healing
Soroush
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:32:02 -0000
From: "hahnemannian2002"
Subject: Re: Please Please Please Help Me

Sheri-
I know that though you meant well it sounded a little harsh...
And I do feel that there are many different kinds of homeopathy
being practised. There are constitutional prescribers, miasmatic
prescribers, symptom coverers, Drainage prescribers, Low potency
people, LM practitioners, Nosodopaths, Sequential therapists. All
claim to be homeopaths and one way or other all seem to work if not
in all at least in many cases. Which of these makes you ill? And who
makes the final call? Do we trash Richard Hughes just because we are
Kentians. Do we criticize Kent because we are fond of Burnett? Are
Neo Classical masters who spin their web of delusional mysticism any
more true to the Spirit of homeopathy than the barefoot village
practitioner who treats successfully the acutest of acute maladies
with whatever Key note prescription he or she is capable of.Starting
from Boenninghausen,Hering, Lippe, Kent, Dunham, Farrington till
Edward Whitmont, Richard Hayes, MLTyler every one of them practised
what THEY understood as their form of Homeopathy. Each one had
emphasized on what he or she had thought would lead to the simillimum
or remove an obstacle to cure. There is one argument that more than
the bastardization of homeopathy it is the schism in homeopathy (
where the purists high brow the lowly mongrels) that caused its down
fall in US 80 years back. Let us be tolerant and "vaccinate ourselves"
against falling ill in the face of mixed-up homeopathy practice.
Selecting a remedy is different from matching the symptoms of the
patient with the medicinal symptoms. Gathering all the symptoms of
the patient or just the key notes or the generals or the state of the
patient are all attempts to increase the probability of getting a
hit. But they are all NOT necessary. If by looking at a patient you
can arrive at a remedy diagnosis ( no one can do that but just
imagine if it were so) then you do not need to take all these
symptoms into account- right. It is arriving at the correct remedy
that is important and not HOW. Much as I admire your enthusiasm for
homeopathy still I wanted to clarify these.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[J Lucas]

Oh Soroush, more gloom and doom about what Homeopathy CANNOT do. Yet to see
anyone who scores 100% with a first rx? Not interested in anything that
isn't so called 'classical' or Hahnemannian homeopathy? If someone wants to
ask all those who are not from that camp to leave this list then how many
members would there be I wonder.

Who is misleading who? Who has been talking about prescribing on the mere
glance at a client?

Homeopathy is only as good as the practitioner - what is wrong with that
stance. I think if you are not careful you will end up not promoting
homeopathy only cutting it down.

Do you want to tell us all the colleges who are training their students to
suppress?

Also I should say that Sheri has her own point of view - my initial
objection was how it was put across with venom. The 2 people that offered
some kind of response to the original enquiry could have been asked to
discuss their point of view. If their point of view is going to be clamped
with rudeness it doesn't say much about how we approach our clients.
Physician heal thyself, comes to mind.

best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 29/6/04 9:16 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:
Dear Colleagues

I think Sheri has a very valid point. We must not mislead people at any
stage.

Some of the dangers have already been pointed out.

So far as I see it, Homoeopathy is an Art and a Science. You cannot easily
separate them apart.

Of course the object of the exercise is to find the correct remedy for the
patient. If you are that good that by the time the patient has sat down in
front of you, you know for sure what remedy they need at this stage, then
fine for you - but what if the choice is wrong. How does one unravel a case
which needed no records.
" The patient sat in front of me and I knew immediately that they needed X.
I knew so what is there to explain."

I am yet to see anyone who scores 100% with their first prescription. So a
couple of months later when nothing has happened perhaps, then I think the
story would be different.

Also if we read the Organon, Hn explains how the art and science should be
practised in Aph 3.

There are a great number of superb homoeopaths - they all build a reputation
for themselves. They seem to treat cases with success. However, when you
look at really what is happening, in some of the cases it is a bit like the
cancer statistics. The allopaths treat the cancer cases and if the cancer
does not return for 5 years, then statistically the case is regarded as
cured, if it arrives at 5 years and a week, it is still a cured case
statistically. That has no meaning in homoeopathy. Our cure MUST be
permanent. (Aph 2)

We need to differentiate among Cure, palliation and suppression.
My greatest worry is about those who knowingly or and unknowingly suppress.
That in my mind is the greatest danger in any practise and also the way some
colleges train their students.
Combo prescriptions are now on the rise and with great glee these people
come and say how the symptoms were quickly removed - yes and what of the
aftermath? Only silence? Before you defend such practises, you need to sign
a piece of paper agreeing that you yourself and your nearest and dearest
will be treated by such practitioners.
So is Sheri wrong in protesting against such a practise? In my mind she is
not! More power to her elbow.

Would I be correct in saying that some of the present colleges do not
discuss these issues in depth? How many of our colleagues have ACTUALLY read
the Organon from the beginning to the end even once but have written books
about how to practise homoeopathy? How many blind are leading more blind?

Someone pass the Bell pls, I need enlightenment!

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

[Eleana Needham]

Very succinctly and sensitively put Joy - thank you!

The paramount issue is the welfare of the patient - we all seem to have
this as the focal point. How INDIVIDUAL we are at doing so, let it remain
individual.

Eleana