history

[Ellen Madono]

Hi,
I once contacted a well known homeopath and he asked for a video tape of me describing my symptoms. Of course, he asked me to drive 10 hours to his place as a better alternative. My teacher starts a distance interview with a questionaire.
Blessings,
Ellen

[Shannon Nelson]

A number of the people I (occasionally) prescribe for are at a distance, tho
they are people that I already know well, so it's not quite the same thing.
Still, I do often feel handicapped by not being able to *see* the person,
and get all of the other sensory clues. With one person (who goes thru a
great deal of intense changes with some regularity, remedy or no), it has
sometimes been helpful to ask her what she sees in her mirror -- any changes
to her "usual" appearance. Of course this wouldn't be relevant for most
situations...

Shannon
on 8/26/04 8:28 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg. MD. PhD. at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:

[Allen Coniglio]

To make one thing clear if it is not already, doing a long distance case is
sometimes appropriate, imo. I did one last week. Sometimes, these things
cannot be avoided. The point is, that even in such situations, one must use
a common sense, classical approach and always take a complete case. Asking
what do I use for this condition or that condition or prescribing on disease
names is not good homeopathy and almost always will result in failure.

Allen

[Dhavid & Melody]

As a matter of curiosity, I wonder if anyone has made use of the current
technology using webcam to speak to patients who are computer literate,
which is just about everyone these days? That is an added dimension missed
that can be caputured and what about using www.Skype.com which is free long
distance communication on the computer and would allow one to talk to their
patients free and hear their voice and vice versa. Perhaps that is too
complicated for many, but one might be surprised.
Melody Cooper
Houston, Texas

[Dave Hartley]

Dear Angela,

If you (singular & plural) have something to share, which is off-topic,
why not strike up a potentially lovely and enlightening PRIVATE email
thread?

-OR maybe even better -- take the subject which is off-topic for this
list, and start up a thread on another list where it may be PERFECTLY
in-tune with that other lists focus.

There's little sense in feeling sad over the fact that this list has a
VERY SPECIFIC focus.

The SAD thing is, that people JOIN this list (one would suppose) knowing
full well that it is a classical / Hahnemannian HOMEOPATHY list -and
then they proceed to attempt to "educate" the list at large to whatever
their own personal off-topic passion is.
-and then, of course, they tend to feel outraged when reminded of the
topical focus.

go figure.
David Hartley www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay (510)776-5914
---------------------

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Angela,

I understand what you say, that in principle one should be able to
discuss that art of healing according to whichever modality the
specific list dictates, without any untoward contention.
However the image that springs to mind is that of the college where
students train in the healing arts.
I remember clearly during my time there that this was not a place
without confrontation and overt expressions of raw emotion but was
also a place of resolutions and discovery.
I have reports that other student's experience of homeopathic training
mirrors this. Homeopathy is very real, it tests both practitioner and
student and brooks no deception form its patients either. Why should we
therefore shy away from instances of this process?

Your concern over the potentially hostile reception of your comments to
the list is understandable but again I would question it. If your
shared experience can stand the only test that matters as far as this
list is concerned, that the patient's health truly improves, then any
derogatory comments only serve to display the ignorance of the
protagonist. Perhaps what you really have in short supply is not thick
skin but patience?

For my part I will post here whatever I think may be of benefit to
those who will listen, outright condemnation of any of my approaches is
water off a ducks back to me, and if it isn't then it is me that has
the problem, no one else. I welcome honest challenges yet appreciate
that I may not always be able to convincingly explain my position to
the satisfaction of all. This does not concern me, I will do what I
can, I can do no more. I find the situation humorous when
misunderstandings become intractible, and marvel at my own ability to
still be able to take myself too seriously. I will always communicate
as clearly, honestly and intelligently as I can with those that will do
the same. I may respond 'similarily' to those that will not, that is
not necessarily the same as my personal investment in being right.
regards
Simon King LCPH MARH

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Dr J,

If I understand your query right- I suspect the responses to this will
depend on whether it falls outside our usual casetaking parameters.

here's a question:
How would we respond in these situations, would it be different for
each, what is the difference?:
(if we take payment completely out of the equation for a moment)
between:

giving a remedy for an acute over the phone, (or by anything other
than face to face), e.g.

"I got soaked on the way home and now ..." (gives Rhus-t Symptoms)
or
"is it OK to give Johnny Arnica 30 for the bruise on his thigh after
falling off his bike, will it interfere with his inhalers?"
or
"I have PMT, can you recommend a remedy.." (gives sepia symptoms)
or
"I have a painful lump in my breast, where I bruised it a year ago,
can you recommend a remedy..?

It seems to me that there must be a sliding scale between the amount of
information required for a case and what's available by the
consultation means, combined with the practitioners personal skill in
eliciting it by that means and the requirements for prescribing in any
instance.

To contrast with the examples in the consulting room, where on the one
hand you know the remedy as soon as they walk in and where on the other
you are still struggling two hours later, this must surely boil down to
whether the combination of the interactions between patient and
practitioner do yield by whatever medium the clear and concise
understanding of the remedy required.

With regard to the consultation medium I doubt there can be one rule
for all in this.
There must be pros and cons to taking the F2F (face to face) element
out of it, but I think the overriding concern is less about
practitioner integrity, (which is an individual matter), and more
about the marketing of homeopathy overall.

It seems to me that there is much that could be done to better market
homeopathy if the homepathic community were to globally unite behind
it.

Perhaps there should be a list devoted just to that!

regards
Simon King LCPH MARH

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