Hello to everyone!
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
From my point of view, a homoeopath has to consider the client to be on
a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance to become what you call 'a professional client', who will
eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
There is.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
[ Placebo]
-
Paul Booyse
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: [ Placebo]
Hello all,
may I make a request to everyone to edit, remove excess info from the
emails. i.e. when hitting the reply button, keep just the parts of the
email necessary to comment on. Some emails are starting to get real long.
Thanks,
Paul
may I make a request to everyone to edit, remove excess info from the
emails. i.e. when hitting the reply button, keep just the parts of the
email necessary to comment on. Some emails are starting to get real long.
Thanks,
Paul
Re: [ Placebo]
Hello to everyone!
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
From my point of view, a homoeopath has to consider the client
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
From my point of view, a homoeopath has to consider the client
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
-
Sue Muller
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: [ Placebo]
Quite a few people have written about the use of placebo most of them in
favour of it.
Anyway, through thick and thin I have never used placebo and really have
never had a need for it and if it hadn't been part and parcel of old
homeopathic practice I wonder if any body else would be using it either. In
fact, the whole history of placebo/homeopathy/conventional research is
intimately linked and very
interesting if there is anyone out there interested.
I'm away for a week but I'd be happy to carry on a dialogue about this when
I get back.
Sue
favour of it.
Anyway, through thick and thin I have never used placebo and really have
never had a need for it and if it hadn't been part and parcel of old
homeopathic practice I wonder if any body else would be using it either. In
fact, the whole history of placebo/homeopathy/conventional research is
intimately linked and very
interesting if there is anyone out there interested.
I'm away for a week but I'd be happy to carry on a dialogue about this when
I get back.
Sue
Re: [ Placebo]
Hello to everyone!
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
Re: [ Placebo]
Hello to everyone!
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
Dear Dave,
this email refers to
You should have continued reading there is not only
§ 1
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health,
to cure, as it is termed."
but there is Apphorism 2 as well.
§ 2
"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of
the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole
extent, in the
shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles."
The "most harmless way" in my opinion includes to avoid deceit, as far
as it is managable wihout endangering the highest priciple, as it is
stated in § 1.
In his Message 7
Paul mentioned some reasons why one might use a placebo, and why one
might deceive a patient to attain the higher goal - his health. That's
fair discussion.
I think the question whether and under which circumstances a placebo
might be administered is worthwhile discussing for it is important to
know what one is doing, what the ethical implications are. If one has
got to make a moral or an ethical decision, it is important to think
about it conscientiuosly. So I think discussing about such a topic is so
important. It not so much the question whether you decide in favour or
against, it's the process of how you come to the decision, how you can
justify it - "according to my ability and judgement" as it is said in
the Hippocratic oath.
Thus I appreciated the answers of Sue, Joy, Paul and Dr Sahni, and I
enjoyed reading them.
Please, don't shout - that's definitely not professional.
to be on a par with him. If one looks down on his patients, how can one
be the
"unprejudiced observer" (§ 6) Hahnemann asks for?
Who on earth has got the whole truth of homoeopathy?
Why are so emotionally charged?
Nobody has renounced your authority, neither has one imposed the quest
for self-denial upon you.
"aude sapere" is the subheading of Samuel Hahnemann's Organon.
Hahnemann is quoting here Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of
German Enlightenment.
In his essay "Was ist Aufklärung?" ("What is Enlightenment?") Kant
demands:
"Sapere aude! Habe Mut dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist
also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung." ("Have the courage to use your own
mind! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.")
Thus Kant's idea of enlightenment must have been hold dear by Hahnemann.
"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner eigen Unmündigkeit."
("Enlightenment is man's escape from his self-induced intellectual
dependency.")
Thus I think it is important to help the patient to understand by
informing him about his illness, explaining him the basic principles of
homeopathy and telling him which remedy prescribed. The patient has got
the chance
to become what you call 'a professional client', who will eagerly follow
clear instructions. They will not follow because of intellectual
dependency, but because they can use their own mind to understand the
principle of homoeopathy to certain degree.
Homoeopathy treatment is a process of continuous learning for both the
homoeopath as well as for the patient.
Sincerely,
Claudia
-
John Boulderstone
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: [ Placebo]
Dear All
Nobody denies that there is a phenomen called the placebo effect but few
take the time to try to work out just what is happening. Probably because
the results appear to be random and unrepeatable by scientists they are
dismissed. This is exactly the same reason that some scientists dismiss
homeopathy. Personally I don't believe it is possible to give what most
people refer to as a placebo. Just because it has no material potentised
substance does not mean you are not going to have an affect on another
person. Indeed the placebo effect says it can be curative. The attitude you
have when giving it matters.
I suspect that there isn't anyone on this list that would ever want to
deceive a patient, everyone here wants to help their patients. If, however,
you have deception in your mind when you give a blank remedy then you will
reap the karmic results of that action. If you give a blank remedy with a
positive attitude you will gain the karmic results of that action. Its up to
you and no one else.
John
Nobody denies that there is a phenomen called the placebo effect but few
take the time to try to work out just what is happening. Probably because
the results appear to be random and unrepeatable by scientists they are
dismissed. This is exactly the same reason that some scientists dismiss
homeopathy. Personally I don't believe it is possible to give what most
people refer to as a placebo. Just because it has no material potentised
substance does not mean you are not going to have an affect on another
person. Indeed the placebo effect says it can be curative. The attitude you
have when giving it matters.
I suspect that there isn't anyone on this list that would ever want to
deceive a patient, everyone here wants to help their patients. If, however,
you have deception in your mind when you give a blank remedy then you will
reap the karmic results of that action. If you give a blank remedy with a
positive attitude you will gain the karmic results of that action. Its up to
you and no one else.
John
Re: [ Placebo]
I agree wholeheartedly with John B
There are many healing modalities practiced in this world, and some users of
these modalities are more successful than others (Why is this so?). Most
therapists use methodolgies they were introduced to in their training as well
as others they have added after beginning practice. However, not all therapists
are solely reliant on classroom & textbook 'method' to treat their clients. The
tools that a therapist employs must be assessed by the therapist as being the
most suitable for the circumstance of the individual sitting before them.
Is treating someone homoeopathically, just the giving of a homoeopathic pill?
Well, to some maybe it is, but to others there is more to the healing
relationship than that and there are different levels of 'healing' that can
take place. It would seem that there is not much use giving a remedy and
expecting a result if you knock on the door and the door remains tightly shut!
Much more useful to have the door open, before giving the remedy - But that is
a whole other area of discussion!
There are many variations on treatment within the modality of Homoeopathy, with
some prescribing measurable amounts of molecules and those who prescribe
dilutions beyond this. As has been mentioned in other posts, some may believe
that it is 'deceitful' to prescribe high dilutions claiming it is a remedy.
The use of placebo is practiced by many therapeutic methods, and does not
always have to be a sugar pill. Its use is not to deceive, but to fulfill a
function, a function that the therapist feels is necessary for the successful
treatment of the individual patient. If the therapist is coming from a place of
'GoodWill' then as long as the therapist feels that the treatment is
appropriate, then I believe that it is. If you don't feel comfortable
prescribing anything, then it is likely not to hit the mark you would have
liked it to hit whether it is placebo or not.
I have not personally prescribed homoeopathic placebo for any of my patients,
however, if the occasion arises and I assess the need, and it feels right, then
I will! And I will know that it was the right thing to do for the individual,
as I would be coming from a place of goodwill which in my assessment is a
'healing place'.
Regards
Robyn
There are many healing modalities practiced in this world, and some users of
these modalities are more successful than others (Why is this so?). Most
therapists use methodolgies they were introduced to in their training as well
as others they have added after beginning practice. However, not all therapists
are solely reliant on classroom & textbook 'method' to treat their clients. The
tools that a therapist employs must be assessed by the therapist as being the
most suitable for the circumstance of the individual sitting before them.
Is treating someone homoeopathically, just the giving of a homoeopathic pill?
Well, to some maybe it is, but to others there is more to the healing
relationship than that and there are different levels of 'healing' that can
take place. It would seem that there is not much use giving a remedy and
expecting a result if you knock on the door and the door remains tightly shut!
Much more useful to have the door open, before giving the remedy - But that is
a whole other area of discussion!
There are many variations on treatment within the modality of Homoeopathy, with
some prescribing measurable amounts of molecules and those who prescribe
dilutions beyond this. As has been mentioned in other posts, some may believe
that it is 'deceitful' to prescribe high dilutions claiming it is a remedy.
The use of placebo is practiced by many therapeutic methods, and does not
always have to be a sugar pill. Its use is not to deceive, but to fulfill a
function, a function that the therapist feels is necessary for the successful
treatment of the individual patient. If the therapist is coming from a place of
'GoodWill' then as long as the therapist feels that the treatment is
appropriate, then I believe that it is. If you don't feel comfortable
prescribing anything, then it is likely not to hit the mark you would have
liked it to hit whether it is placebo or not.
I have not personally prescribed homoeopathic placebo for any of my patients,
however, if the occasion arises and I assess the need, and it feels right, then
I will! And I will know that it was the right thing to do for the individual,
as I would be coming from a place of goodwill which in my assessment is a
'healing place'.
Regards
Robyn
-
Paul Booyse
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: [ Placebo]
Hi John,
The place effect says it will please, there is no implication of cure. When
we assess the placebo effect we must be sure what parameters we use. A knee
pain getting better is only 1 symptom. We should use the same basis for
remedy action assessment that we use in homeopathy - Herings law. I don't
think a placebo can be curative on all levels for 2 reasons.
1.) it does not carry the healing principles of the simillimum and while we
might please the patient and he feels better, through belief, it will not
address the cause of the disturbance which is at the core
delusion/situation/archetype level.
2.) If placebo cured, homeopathy would cure far more cases where the remedy
given was incorrect. When I give the wrong remedy, my patients don't get
better. Any improvements are either unfavourable (i.e. contary to Herings
law) or temporary in a palliative fashion. When the patient gets really
better, I can always explain the good response by the expectation of what
the remedy was required to do.
No doubt there is some effect from placebo, but that is why we analyze on
follow up to determine whether the response is favourable or not.
Perhaps it is more the impression you give the patient during consultation
which determines the effect.
Something which I think affects the patient far more is the actual
consulation itself. It can happen during the course of events that the
discussion and case giving leads the patient to talk about and come to an
understanding of a core issue - the "aha" experience. A true realization
here can imo help the curative process.
Regards,
Paul
The place effect says it will please, there is no implication of cure. When
we assess the placebo effect we must be sure what parameters we use. A knee
pain getting better is only 1 symptom. We should use the same basis for
remedy action assessment that we use in homeopathy - Herings law. I don't
think a placebo can be curative on all levels for 2 reasons.
1.) it does not carry the healing principles of the simillimum and while we
might please the patient and he feels better, through belief, it will not
address the cause of the disturbance which is at the core
delusion/situation/archetype level.
2.) If placebo cured, homeopathy would cure far more cases where the remedy
given was incorrect. When I give the wrong remedy, my patients don't get
better. Any improvements are either unfavourable (i.e. contary to Herings
law) or temporary in a palliative fashion. When the patient gets really
better, I can always explain the good response by the expectation of what
the remedy was required to do.
No doubt there is some effect from placebo, but that is why we analyze on
follow up to determine whether the response is favourable or not.
Perhaps it is more the impression you give the patient during consultation
which determines the effect.
Something which I think affects the patient far more is the actual
consulation itself. It can happen during the course of events that the
discussion and case giving leads the patient to talk about and come to an
understanding of a core issue - the "aha" experience. A true realization
here can imo help the curative process.
Regards,
Paul