Thank you for your respectful and considerate post. Please
understand that I am not in a position to attempt to persuade anyone
from classical homeopathy, and the fact is that I also practice
classically, believing that it is a beautiful methodology. There
are times, however, when I practice differently, not because I think
Hahnemann got anything wrong, but more because I don't think
Hahnemann's genius would not have continued to evolve and expand had
he had the ability to live on and on.
It's my opinion (and I do stress *opinion*) that no field, much less
one of medicine, can or should stop dead in its tracks, advancing no
further, at the moment that its founder leaves this earth. Also,
I've heard so much disagreement as to the *interpretation* (not the
actual content) of the Organon, that it really is anybody's guess
who is right and who is wrong. We know *Hahnemann* wasn't wrong,
but he couldn't have meant for his words to take on more than one
meaning, so the difficulty lies in interpretation.
Hahmenamm was a man of both science and art. Neither should be
allowed to stagnate, regardless of how impressive its beginnings
are. I guess I just operate from a more tolerant position:
Tolerance of change, tolerance of newness, tolerance of
exploration. That might mean that I don't qualify as mainstream and
I am not entitled to live in "the classical neighborhood", but it
only makes me different in my own right, not wrong or lesser. I
find that it's important that when something different is presented,
those who are in disagreement do not respond in the same manner upon
which racism and intolerance in all forms is predicated: Anger,
rejection and criticism of that which is different or not understood.
I'll answer your questions as best I can. Thank you for your
honesty in informing me of your need for specificity. I respect the
list and the experience of so many on it. I'm fully prepared to
learn and am more than happy to share.
I can't post any entire cases, Soroush, and in fact I have violated
the tenets of ethical practice by posting what I already have in the
absence of client consent. I started by being very general (for
this reason), as evidenced in my original post. But as the
questions came, I gave more and more detail until I realized that I
was not entitled to use these people's cases to support my
position. I aplogize, Soroush; please understand that cases of
severe mental illness, particularly those involving paranoia are not
usually amenable to public exposure. I've asked on a couple of
occasions, as I wanted to post the cases online for input, but the
clients declined in no uncertain terms. I rarely ask this of such
cases anymore, as I have found that it instantly undermines these
clients' trust in me, and trust is a HUGE issue for many of these
people. So I always proceed with the utmost delicacy. Aside from
this restriction, I'll answer your other questions:
take, can you
the same
*** This harkens back to my explanation with regard to
interpretation of the Organon. The answer will challenge
philosophical beliefs, and I know that this list has already been
exposed to discussions of this nature before. According to
Hahnemann, the only time that more than one dis-ease cannot occupy
the living force at once is if they are similar. Which leaves the
question of why can't more than one DISsimilar dis-eases co-exist?
In point of fact, Hahemann describes how more than one dissimilar
disease can occupy the organism at once, "each occupying a
particular region, the site characteristically belonging to it" (Aph
40) He goes on to state that because these diseases are dissimilar
to one another, they cannot extinguish one another. The only
conclusion then is that they co-exist. Hahnemann also describes how
the stronger of the dissimilar diseases may suspend the weaker for a
time and that it can be "sometimes stronger" (Aph 39), from which
the conclusion can be drawn that it can also be sometimes weaker,
meaning that the other dissimilar disease can assert itself at the
times when it is the stronger. So, from this, there have been
interpretations that support the contention that not only can more
than one disease exist in the organism at once, but that, depending
upon when each is stronger or weaker, they may each assert
themselves at various intervals. In addition, Hahmemann speaks of
how allopathic intervention "adds a new disease condition to the old
one" (Aph 39). The very fact that he states that the new disease
condition is "added" to the old one, suggests that the result is two
diseases at once.
you
*** The same way that you would allocate increased thirst and
urination to diabetes and not to rheumatoid arthritis. This, I
believe, is the strongest sticking point with regards to this manner
of rxing. It is paramount to me to ensure that these clients are
comfortable and as stable as possible. If I expect them to come off
of psychotropic and other psychiatric drugs, then I'd better be full
able to keep their mental state on as even a keel as I can
(incidentally, there is always a psychiatrist on these cases, as
well). If that means one remedy for controlling psychosis and
another for controlling acute panic, then I have no alternative but
to use what is needed. Over time, as progress commences, if a
remedy can be discontinued, it is. If a new remedy is in order, it
is rxd. To further enrage those who are chomping at the bit as we
speak, I often also include the constitutional remedy (ala Eizayaga
model) to strengthen the vitality of the client.
Many of these clients are very well informed on their condition(s).
With the advent of Internet lists and support groups, people have
become knowledgeable of their symptoms and those who have a
reasonable level of insight know what they are experiencing. For
instance, a person will know when he is suffering the inability to
embrace the doubt that is characteristic of OCD and is cognizant of
the fact that his/her fears are **probably** unreasonable, but if
there's even the smallest doubt, they must perform whatever
compulsion banishes that doubt. These people will not confuse this
with, say, the paranoid delusions of psychosis, where the sufferer
fully believes, without reservation, that his doubts and fears are
REAL.
In addition, I am very well-versed on psychiatric disorders and so
understand and recognize their characteristics. The cure lies in
identifying what makes each unique to the individual: what drives
their false beliefs, what generates their anxiety, along with the
content of their delusions and fears. Is it a morbid fear of
failure? Is it a morbid fear of loss? An overwhelming sense of
responsiblity? Is there something in their history that marks the
onset, whether a physical or emotional insult? Has there been a
long history of instability with various mental disorders developing
at different stages in the person's life, ultimately culminating in
the present condition? If an etiology can be defined, then I will
not only address it directly, but also continue to use the remedies
that keep the person's mental state stable. And believe me, the
mental state can change on a dime.
Very often the content of the voices characteristic of schizophrenia
and schizoaffective disorder (also bipolar disorder, but much less
commonly) lends VERY strong clues as to what lies behind the
condition. I have found that each case seems to have an enduring
theme upon which the person's torment is predicated. Even olfactory
hallucinations can follow this theme (i.e. a case with sexual abuse
in its history may hallucinate the odor of semen). Each case is
different.
*** This is where I can't proceed any further with specifics,
Soroush. Sorry. I've already exposed too much detail about very
sensitive cases.
Thank you, Soroush. And you, as well
Toni