ethical issues

[Dr. Jill Elliot]

Hi Sheila
Hope you are well.
You raise a important issue. In one of my student (people) cases recently I wanted to give the remedy Ratt-n (the rat) (Nancy Herrick's rat.-- There is also a Bombay rat proved by Jayesh Shah). I decided not to tell the client the name of the remedy. This created a very bad feeling between myself and the client. He kept insisting on knowing the remedy. I did not want to tell him. I polled my colleagues and they were divided 50-50 on whether to tell or not tell. My intention was to help heal him but my thought was "he would not take it if he knew what it was". I finally sent him an e mail saying I would tell him if he really wanted to know, but by that time he just let it go. When I saw in for the next follow up he was furious at the process and "being left out" of the process. He is a control person.
(But I also felt I was in a power play and control situation with him and felt guilty about that.)
I could understand him wanting to know what he was putting into his body.

So this is a big issue.
In the future I'm still not sure what I would do.
When this client and I talked further about it I realized he was really saying that he wanted to know the reasons I gave the remedy (I'm not sure he would have been happy with just that but that is what he said.)

I asked Jayesh Shah what he does in his practice in India. He said he has a sign over his clinic door that says something like "If you don't want to know the name of your remedy then come in."

I don't think we are obligated to tell the patient the name of the remedy. Most do not care. Even when I explain the remedy to them they don't get it. They all ask, but what's the remedy for?
Some care passionately. But if the client makes such a big deal out of it, I think it's more important to preserve the relationship. After all if they don't want to take it, that's their decision. What I have seen in other student cases in the clinic I am part of, is that there are patients that have refused to take all sorts of remedies (regardless of the name, like thuja, apis, etc.) So perhaps the exact name is not the reason they are refusing to take it. Perhaps it's their resistance to getting well? Their need for control? Who knows?

Homeopathy is difficult to understand even sometimes for homeopaths. So why should we expect that all our patients will understand how things work. Often we may not have enough time to explain it thoroughly to them. Is that really our job? Shouldn't they do some research on their own to find out more. Do acupuncturists spend a half hour explaining how acupuncture works to their clients? I often suggest websites www.demystify.com (to download the book "Demystifying Homeopathy" and give out that book to clients in the office.

I occasionally have given sac lac at the initial visit and label it something else. What I found one of the few times I did it was the client called a week later to tell me their was improvement in the animal (I'm a veterinarian). The energy and appetite were greatly improved, etc. This made me wonder about the placebo effect (on the owner? on the animal?) on seeing me and my intention for healing? What improved the animal? Hard to know. But raised some interesting questions for me to think about. Still not sure. Perhaps they would have improved without seeing me?
I don't do this as a common practice but felt that person needed to walk out with something.

One of the problems is that at least in NYC many clients expect quick fixes. As we know, many remedies work slowly and need time to germinate. Therefore sometimes giving a dose of sac lac to help the client feel they are getting something is not a terrible thing. (I personally do not do this very often, but can see the reason for it.)
What I have found is if I don't give them something they start doing things on their own and this can interfere with the process of cure. So that's the dilemma.
What's the answer? There may be none. From my point of view, each case has to be decided on an individual basis. I also agree there are no rules.

And Sheila, in the cases you specifically mentioned, there will always be a range of experience and expertise in homeopaths. We are all growing and developing at different levels. You might have spoken with the homeopaths before referring your friends to them to ask about their philosophy. That might have given you an idea of what your friends could have expected. On the other hand, I have referred friends to people I thought were good homeopaths and they were not helped by them. Not every homeopath is going to help every client. And some excellent homeopaths may need a few years to get to the right remedy for a particular client. It doesn't mean they are not a good homeopath.

Again at the seminars Jayesh Shah has been presenting in NYC (He's returning again in Sept. 2002), he has been presenting cases he has worked with for years, unable to find the right remedy. He's showing us how he finally is able to get to the right remedy after all his best efforts.
So I wouldn't be so bold as to criticize other homeopaths who are doing their best to find a remedy for someone. Perhaps Cann-i was the correct remedy or appeared to be the correct remedy. Who are we to say what might have been a better remedy? We were not there to take the case.

Another ethical question is "Can we allow ourselves the privilege of doing our best to take the case and find the best remedy at the time and then continue working the case patiently (getting help when we feel stuck) and giving our patients our best efforts?" If all this does not move the case to cure after a few remedies, have we failed? I don't think so. Some cases/people take time to unfold. We have chosen a difficult path. But a worthwhile one. So I'm in for the long haul.
I learn something new with every class or seminar or new book I read. I wish I knew in the beginning what I know how. I am a better homeopath now than I was a few years ago, but I still had successes back then. And I still have "failures" now. Not every case is curable. Hopefully I have more successes now. (And it takes me less time to find the remedy an see the case and the main issues/problems more clearly).
I don't think we should judge other homeopaths so harshly if we feel they had good intentions.
Other thoughts?
Best, Jill

Jill Elliot, DVM
The Holistic Veterinarian
New York, New York
212-794-4993
www.happytailsvet.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sue Muller]

Dear Sheila and others,

I know there are problems with some of the remedies (must say though there
must have been an alternative to rat). Syphilinum is called Lueticum,
Opium - Papaver sominiferum and vegetarians won't take some of the animal
derived remedies, people read in a book and think the chosen remedy doesn't
apply and so
on. I have also from time to time had people say they did not want to take
the remedy for whatever reason. Tuberculinum would be a classic for this.

However, it's never become an issue because I don't know whether the
treatment is going to be effective anyway so who am I to say? It is easy to
explain the rational reasons for the tx., how remedy is made etc. and tell
them it's up to them, because ethically it is. This is the era we live in.

Sue