From my understanding of what you have written I am concerned that you seem
have confused the treatment of epidemic (an acute disease suffered by a
large section of the population almost all at the same time) diseases with
the treatment of chronic diseases.
In terms of treatment of epidemic diseases, each patient in an epidemic (let
us say that the epidemic has just struck and you are facing the first few
patients) will give you symptom common to that disease and also each will
contribute in a jig-saw fashion pieces of information for a whole picture to
be built. On the basis of this information a few remedies will be
short-listed
In terms of treatment, you will find that they will obviously have a degree
of commonly shared symptoms, but each will have symptoms that are individual
to each patient. On that basis from the short-listed remedies the most
suitable is quickly selected.
This is certainly not the case with chronic diseases. Irrespective of what
the disease or syndrome may be called, we cannot treat the disease by its
name. If we could what do you suggest for cases of asthma, or rheumatism or
arthritis etc.
It must be recognised that it is the 'patient in disease' that we treat and
not the 'disease in patient'.
I certainly regard Herring and Phatak in high esteem as homoeopath, but
please bring one writing from them that shows that purely because their
patient was old they used such-and-such a remedy. You will find that they
individualised around the significant symptoms of each patient. After all
when our allopathic colleagues on seeing an asthmatic patient reach
immediately to prescribe some kind of an inhaler, we individualise in trying
to find out how the patient's breathing is effected along with other
functions. It then often turns out that a peculiarity of some other symptom
will guide us to the remedy which will also cure the asthma.
In terms of studying Materia Medica, please be careful whose you read as I
am afraid there a some cases where the teaching does cause remedy prejudices
to be formed.
For example if I said that a patient is Affectionate, mild, benevolent,
cheerful, sympathetic, timid and yielding - which remedies would come to
mind? The average homoeopath would not think of Nux-v, purely because the
way s/he has been taught!
Re 153: This is exactly what I had in mind. It is only by individualising
around the patient through thorough questioning of the patient and if
necessary his friends and family and importantly OBSERVATION that you can
find out what the required remedy is and NOT by some body else's definition
of a particular syndrome and CERTAINLY not by the common symptoms.
I note that you yourself have not offered a meaning for Senile Psychosis!!!
)For my own curiosity, please advise where you are based and where you learnt
about homoeopathy.
I hope 2002 brings you success.
Soroush Ebrahimi