prescribing online

[Joy Lucas]

Some recent events have brought some serious issues to light:-

should we prescribe online?
what are our responsibilities within this group
legitimacy of certain situations

Why shouldn't we prescribe online? I personally believe it to be a perfectly
viable situation - I frequently prescribe for acutes over the phone. It is
very much the same circumstances. You HAVE to ask the right questions, you
HAVE to be able to say you have a case to prescribe on, you need to be able
to repertorise (if nec), and you need to know your remedies as much as
possible. IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO GET THE REMEDY RIGHT. If you cannot
confidently say to yourself "this is definately a ........ case", then do
not prescribe if you are in too much doubt. REFER THE CASE TO SOMEONE ELSE.

Secondly, what are our responsibilities? This is primarily a discussion
group (as far as emails are concerned). But I believe we are doing so much
more than that. There is potential for an enormous amount of learning - of
which there are many and varied means. Real live cases (or in our case they
are "virtual cases") are one of the best ways or learning, clinical
experience is vital - hours and hours and hours of it. Ultimately we will
all make mistakes, we cannot avoid that even when our intentions are good
and just. If we are to proceed with advising and even prescribing online we
have to do our upmost to get it right but we also need to be protected for
when things might go wrong. I don't mean this to be an excuse for not
getting it right this is mere formality. There will always be someone who
wants to discredit what we do, worse still they might try to sue as a worst
case scenario. Therefore a disclaimer is being written up and will appear
accordingly.

Thirdly, legitimacy of some cases is occasionally going to come into
question. One has to use instincts in these situations and go with what you
believe to be honest and right. Much the same as you would with clients who
are there right in front of you - you get good vibes and bad ones. At the
end of the day it depends on how much time you want to spend on any given
case.

Let's be bold and confident in our search for our knowledge of homeopathy in
the coming year.

Best wishes, Joy Lucas RSHom.

[Dr. Jeff Feinman]

[Tanya Marquette]

Dear All

I am so happy to get Joy's response. Too often, I find people have knee jerk reactions to criticism or potential cirticism. I find homeopathy sometimes falls in this category. While it is good to be clear and conscious, I dont think we do ourselves any favors by hiding. The critics use this as a tactic to control us. This is a tactic as old as the hills.

This list is a fantastic discussion process. The cases presented are living and this offer a tremendous dynamism to the process. At no time have I felt anyone pushing a remedy on anyone. Suggestions are just and only that. The debate about remedies in different conditons offers a great insight into the thinking process that we all engage in while trying to solve a case. I would hate to see this truncated because of excessive conservatism.

The disclaimer that Joy mentions is fine. I see it akin to disclaimers that people sign when seeing allopaths or other practitioners.

tanya

[USAHomeopath@aol.com]

It is important to realize the difference between acute prescribing - when
we already have taken the consitutional case of a person- and prescribing
with a few symptoms on line. The long distance treatment undertaken by
Hahnemann was still contitutional treatment- a thorough case was taken.
This is the key. A thorough case.
Treating life threatening illnesses on line opens us to serious
repercussions. It is irresponsible medicine. This endangers individuals and
the future of homeoapthy. Let's make sure we practice responsible medicine,
for the health of all involved.
M. Grimes, RSHom, CCH

[Dr Ramachandra]

Dear Jeff and listees
I also agree and I prescribe in absentia that is with out seeing patients
in Acute cases as well as acute Exasperation of chronic condition after
taking a case in detail and having record of same.But in case of chronic
cases that too first time .it will not be that simple or easy.Even during
personal interview persons hide lot of information,and you have to miss the
advantage of physical examination alsoand getting clues to remedy.I have
many occasions that I have to change my prescription what I made
online/e-mail after meeting the person and taking up the case once
again.ButI dont stop prescribing online/E-mail or on telephone as Iam more
number of time succesful than failed

With Good wishes

Ramachandra
Hyderabad,INDIA

At 08:12 AM 1/3/02 -0500, you wrote:
subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.

[shukribn]

there are two main issues here:

1-that the sick person himself/herself , or a family member of theirs, post
the case and symptoms to the list and ask for recommendation of a remedy etc.
In this case such recommendations should be avoided on list, and no remedy
should be mentioned. Now, any homeopath can communicate with this person
via private
e-mail on their own risk. And even then it is rarely the case that the
person has presented enough, and useful enough information to arrive at a
simillimum, so you hope that these prescribers via private e-mail will put
the great effort, and the hard work to fulfill such requirements. the best
policy, as I see it is to recommend to them to find an established classical
homeopath close to where they live, or recommend a trusted homeopath that
offers consultation via e-mails and phone in combination..
2- That homeopath present a case of a person to the list ,for discussion,
rubrics, and recommendations of possible remedies to consider for study. In
this case , such avenue is legitimate, promoting help, stimulating learning,
and teaching, and the homeopath who presented the case will have the final
word.