Dear Colleagues
Using LM potencies is gradually getting more & more popular among Homeopaths as a safe, gentle and deep make of remedies. Possibility for frequent prescription of remedy and also adjusting the dose and shaking of remedy during the course of treatment are some of specific characteristics of LM potencies in comparison with Centesimal ones. But there are a lot of controversies among practitioners about correct decision in different situations. (I have printed the answers of 3 practising Homeopath here as reference)
Herewith I would like to invite anybody who has experience on LM potencies to a brain storming. So perhaps we could make a guideline on the basis of different experiences and introduce it to Homeopathy literature.
The cases are virtual but exactly similar to different scenarios that we observe in our clinics.
Kind Regards
Shaddel
15/11/2007
Brain Storming
Q: What would you decide in below cases? (Please Choose from below options - We can choose more than 1 option in each case)
A) Reducing the dose
B) Increasing the dose
C) Reducing shakings
D) Increasing shakings
E) Reducing intervals
F) Increasing intervals
G) Waiting
H) Changing remedy
I) Keeping current order
The patient has reported below statement after taking 3 doses of remedy in LM potency (LM1/2nd Dilution glass/5Shaking/1 teaspoon/ once a week)
1) After taking the remedy my stomach pain &Lumbago is better a bit but my Itching and anger are the same. It does not fluctuate during the week between two prescriptions.
S.E: Increase the dose.
A.B: Increasing Shaking
P.B: Increasing Dose & Shaking
2) The first day after taking each dose my stomach pain and lumbago get better but return to previous condition in one day. Itching and Anger are the same and unchanged
S.E: The remedy is not holding - I would check to see what the patient may be doing to anti-dote.
A.B: Increasing Shaking & reducing intervals
P.B: Increasing Dose & Shaking
3) My stomach pain & lumbago get better after each dose but return a bit one day before next dose. Itching and anger is also a bit better
S.E: Bring forward dosing date by 1 day.
A.B: Reducing intervals
P.B: Increasing Shaking
4) My stomach pain & lumbago are much better and Itching & anger are also better. There is no fluctuation during week
S.E: Wait.
A.B: Keeping Current order
P.B: Keeping Current order
5) I have aggravation in my stomach and back in first day after taking remedy but they get better in next days. Itching & anger are the same.
S.E: Potentially the remedy is not correct - I would re-check.
A.B: Reducing Dose & Increasing Shaking
P.B: Reducing Dose & Shaking
Brain Storming - LM potencies
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Brain Storming - LM potencies
Dear Dr Shaddel,
Without even needing -- so it seems to me -- to consult personal experience, those who have read and understood how to apply the principles of homoeopathy might arrive at the following understandings in the five (hypothetical?) cases you've given and be ready to correct their previous mistakes before jumping in to make the next one.
(1) The remedy is not correct and has suppressed the two symptoms with which it had some similarity. A second dose should not have been administered [a]. Re-take the case, this time being sure to get a lot more than four symptoms.
(2) The remedy is not correct and has suppressed the two symptoms enantiopathically as described by Hahnemann in _Chronic Diseases_ . A second dose should not have been administered [a]. Re-take the case, this time being sure to get a lot more than four symptoms.
(3) Interpretation will be difficult without a more rounded idea of the patient's improvements, if any, that did not disappear in six days. It's probable that the remedy was selected wrongly, but this is good case for a single dose and watching until you know whether the remedy is correct [a], and a good case for better case-taking.
(4) I'd agree with S.E., waiting longer after the first dose to follow the general development (particularly the anger and the patient's energy) [a], but it looks promising. Future interpretation is going to be more difficult still if these four symptoms constitute the entire results of case-taking.
(5) Interpretation will again be difficult so soon. The remedy may be correct and the stomach and back aggravation be as Hahnemann described as possible under a correctly selected remedy in too large a dose, or it may simply be incorrect. Obviously the second dose should not have been given without watching for a change in the patient's anger at the very least [a]. Interpretation is going to remain problematic if these four are the only known symptoms.
[a] This is so for two interrelated reasons. First, the case was taken too carelessly to allow selection of the simillimum with any degree of certainty. Second, it's always as well to check the patient's response to the first dose, which is the only way to know whether the medicine meets Hahnemann's condition that before repeating it the physician ensure that "the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic" (Aph. 246).
"We cannot flatter ourselves that the antipsoric medicine given was rightly selected, or that it will forward the cure of a chronic disease, if it quickly and entirely destroys as if by a stroke of magic the most troublesome symptoms, old, great, continuous pains, tonic or clonic spasms, etc., so that the patient almost immediately after taking the medicine, fancies himself as much freed from sufferings as if he were already restored, and as if in heaven. This deceptive effect shows that the medicine here acts enantiopathically as an opposite or palliative, and that in the days following we cannot expect anything from this remedy but an aggravation of the original disease." (_Chronic Diseases_, pp 222 to 223, B. Jain edition.)
Kind regards,
John
Without even needing -- so it seems to me -- to consult personal experience, those who have read and understood how to apply the principles of homoeopathy might arrive at the following understandings in the five (hypothetical?) cases you've given and be ready to correct their previous mistakes before jumping in to make the next one.
(1) The remedy is not correct and has suppressed the two symptoms with which it had some similarity. A second dose should not have been administered [a]. Re-take the case, this time being sure to get a lot more than four symptoms.
(2) The remedy is not correct and has suppressed the two symptoms enantiopathically as described by Hahnemann in _Chronic Diseases_ . A second dose should not have been administered [a]. Re-take the case, this time being sure to get a lot more than four symptoms.
(3) Interpretation will be difficult without a more rounded idea of the patient's improvements, if any, that did not disappear in six days. It's probable that the remedy was selected wrongly, but this is good case for a single dose and watching until you know whether the remedy is correct [a], and a good case for better case-taking.
(4) I'd agree with S.E., waiting longer after the first dose to follow the general development (particularly the anger and the patient's energy) [a], but it looks promising. Future interpretation is going to be more difficult still if these four symptoms constitute the entire results of case-taking.
(5) Interpretation will again be difficult so soon. The remedy may be correct and the stomach and back aggravation be as Hahnemann described as possible under a correctly selected remedy in too large a dose, or it may simply be incorrect. Obviously the second dose should not have been given without watching for a change in the patient's anger at the very least [a]. Interpretation is going to remain problematic if these four are the only known symptoms.
[a] This is so for two interrelated reasons. First, the case was taken too carelessly to allow selection of the simillimum with any degree of certainty. Second, it's always as well to check the patient's response to the first dose, which is the only way to know whether the medicine meets Hahnemann's condition that before repeating it the physician ensure that "the medicine selected with the utmost care was perfectly homoeopathic" (Aph. 246).
"We cannot flatter ourselves that the antipsoric medicine given was rightly selected, or that it will forward the cure of a chronic disease, if it quickly and entirely destroys as if by a stroke of magic the most troublesome symptoms, old, great, continuous pains, tonic or clonic spasms, etc., so that the patient almost immediately after taking the medicine, fancies himself as much freed from sufferings as if he were already restored, and as if in heaven. This deceptive effect shows that the medicine here acts enantiopathically as an opposite or palliative, and that in the days following we cannot expect anything from this remedy but an aggravation of the original disease." (_Chronic Diseases_, pp 222 to 223, B. Jain edition.)
Kind regards,
John