An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]

[John Harvey]

Sue, the trouble with attempting to mix best practice into a definition in that way is that it makes the definition far too narrow and inflexible. If, for instance, somebody develops a new potency scale but practises entirely homoeopathically using medicines potentised on that scale, such practice will violate that definition -- though we'd all say that the potency scale is irrelevant!

The simplest possible definition that includes anything meeting the one criterion that matters and excludes anything that does not meet it would seem to be the ideal one, wouldn't it.

Well, there are a hundred variations on that simple definition. I'm sure I've used 20 or 30 of them myself, and that another 20 or 30 appear in reliable English dictionaries, and that another 50 have appeared on this list at one time or another. They don't specify best practice or good practice; they stick to the essential, singular.

Sorry if it upsets you to see real homoeopathy defended against the sharks with such vigour. Irene de Villiers went off to start a shark list, I understand; perhaps they're more congenial than we piranhas. But it gets tiresome having to defend homoeopathy against those who pretend to support it as well as against those who pretend to oppose it.

The simple solution is that those who want something that violates homoeopathy's law invent their own name for it rather than taint the historically respected name of homoeopathy.

Uh-oh: here comes Shannon again with the "Hahnemann can have this patch, we free spirits will have that one" proposal. As if there is any homoeopathy besides the one Hahnemann defined.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[Liz Brynin]

Your example of an aircraft engineer is ridiculous, John!
What you forget is that there is a strong body of evidence for prescribing in more liberal ways than Hahnemann advocated. People are not just sticking a wet finger in the air to choose a remedy.
You simply cannot accuse all the many, many people who prescribe in this way of being stupid, blind, taking 'the easy way out' or - least of all - charlatans. They have studied long and hard to treat in these ways - starting out with classical homeopathy, and moving on to include other approaches. Whereas I don't see that you have studied anything except one single approach. Which really, really does not qualify you to preach to others.
And that's my issue with you - you are so sure that your way is the only way - that you are always right - that there is one - and only one - way to use homeopathy. Whereas plenty of knowledge exists to show that it can be used in a myriad different ways - be it dry or liquid remedies, multiple or single remedies, ascending or descending potencies, high potencies, low potencies, fibonacci potencies, kentian approach, layers, organ support, drainage, tautopathy, isotherapy...you can go on and on.
And that is the nature of something as wonderful, as flexible and as astounding as homeopathy.
Say you don't like it, fine. But stop bashing and insulting perfectly serious, hardworking, dedicated people who just happen to have found additional and effective ways of using homeopathy.
Oh - and I'm not going to reply to the barrage of comments I am sure this will trigger.
Liz

[Shannon Nelson]

I'm not arging for the rightness or wrongness of any of these methods--I simply don't *know* about that. My point--which you have again missed--is that we can't *find out* what works better, less well, better under which circmstances, etc.--unless we look at the evidence.

We can't look at the evidence unless there is a discussion.

Bye again.
When you attend a school, you tend to rely on the teachers to tell you the reality of the subject you study.
I am looking at 3 different school types, especially in continental Europe: Unicists = the single one remedy approach, Pluralists = multiple remedies, the same day but at different times, each one separately , and Complexists = multiple remedies in the same bottle, the choice of those remedies being individualised.
Each of those schools uses the Organon and the Chronic Diseases as the basis of their practices.....it is HOW they read it and interpret the sentences and the aphorisms that makes the difference.
And each school is adamant they are practicing Hahnemaniann homeopathy........

[John Harvey]

What we like or don't like is irrelevant to the question of what is, Liz.

Do you remember the question? Do you remember its basis? It wasn't a question of whether your jumpjet is better than my windup locomotive. It was a question of whether a jumpjet can legitimately be called a locomotive. NOT whether a jumpjet is just as good as a locomotive.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[Fran Sheffield]

Hi Joe,

I always had the impression that most of those teaching and prescribing these methods started out life as allopathic doctors - especially in previous decades? Was that so?
As much as memory serves me, it has been around 15 years that I learned that....... And I cannot quote the aphorisms.
Treating one disease at a time (the "krankheit" in the Organon)
There can be multiple diseases either present at the same time or associating to form a new entity
A stronger disease will make the symptoms of a weaker one disappear until it is removed, then the old symptoms will reappear.
Based (more or less) on that, the argument was that if you can recognise the different diseases, especially if they are present at different levels, you should treat them all.
So you would take one remedy for a physical ailment, another for the one that was present before the actual one appeared, one remedy for a mental/emotional problem and then some teachers crow the thing by giving a "constitutional" remedy and/or a "miasmatic" remedy.
Without digging back in books and notes (if I can find them) that is about what I can say. But note that those are almost the same arguments used by Rudi Verspoor's Heilkunst methodology.......
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Well, we're in agreement there.

John
When you attend a school, you tend to rely on the teachers to tell you the reality of the subject you study.
I am looking at 3 different school types, especially in continental Europe: Unicists = the single one remedy approach, Pluralists = multiple remedies, the same day but at different times, each one separately , and Complexists = multiple remedies in the same bottle, the choice of those remedies being individualised.
Each of those schools uses the Organon and the Chronic Diseases as the basis of their practices.....it is HOW they read it and interpret the sentences and the aphorisms that makes the difference.
And each school is adamant they are practicing Hahnemaniann homeopathy........

[Shannon Nelson]

Well, evidently we are in disagreement as to what type of discussion would be useful! You favor "dueling theories", while I favor looking at the evidence. My personal familiarity is almost entirely with classical method; I don't *know* anyone who works with combos or the other methods, so I have neither used them nor seen them in action. Unlike you, this is not something I am proud of. Throughout the two decades (wow) that I've been on these lists, I have wished that there could be civil discussion of a more exploratory nature, for people of differing backgrounds to share their experiences with particular types of cases, and come to our own conclusions about those experiences.

Despite the limits of the frequently hostile environment here, I did have my boundaries broadened in the early years, e.g. learning to use low potencies as well as high (that has been a gift), and learning about... well, I won't hold any more up for your target practice just now. ) Let's just say that a *certain* amount of "broadening" has managed to slip past the eager censors!

I continue to feel that a censorious and judgmental attitude is harmful for actual learning, and for the cause of homeopathy in so many ways. And I very much regret that it has made frequent opponents out of people whose knowledge and dedication I do so much respect, e.g. yourself and Joy. But, so be it. I guess one has to follow what seems right to *oneself*, and make the best of the fact that others will not always agree. Good luck to us all!

And now, breakfast...

Shannon

[RichardS]

Here is another suggestion for your tiredness. It is the same tired one that has been made previously: Don't read the posts or take part if this threatens you or your perspectives regarding Homeopathy. Or the warm fuzzy feeling in which you reside or day dream a world with no strife. Homeopathy is a science. So it is a lot like democracies, it gets messy. Many of us would argue that this does strengthen Homeopathy. And in fact the greatest thing we can do as a community of "Homeopaths" is arrive at the simillimum and treat with an eye to cure. This obviously requires that we separate the grain from the chaff.
And for someone interested in ending the discussion, your post below includes defining John's position as a "tantrum" is nothing short of hypocritical and idiotic. So instigating the argument that never ends seems like a childish contradiction.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Sue Boyle wrote:

[RichardS]

Charlatans, revolutionaries, Liz's, whatever you want to call them, just read the Mission Staement of the site. Take yourself and your ever increasingly slippery and "flexible" ideas on Homeoapthy elsewhere. John's position isn't built on "his" rightness, it is built on the status/position/rightness of the site.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Brynin" wrote:

[RichardS]

Censors? You are too much. Read the mission statement then. Dueling theories? I would hope you are not classifying Classical Homeopathy as a theory. A hostile environment? Really? Because your all inclusive "let's hear everybody's story of touchy feely Homeopathy" isn't included for it's inability to qualify itself as Classical? As I have said in the past, if you want all inclusive, start your own group.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote: