Sounds more as the definition of the remedy rather than the practice.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
Post 3
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Hi, Jean! Nice to hear from you.
I think you could well be right, at least in part, as to homoeopathy's mechanisms of action. We're increasingly fortunate in enjoying the benefits of independent-minded researchers digging into what goes on after administration of a homoeopathic medicine, aren't we.
In pursuing this particular discussion, it may be simpler and infinitely less fraught to leave aside questions both of intent and of mechanism, as neither really needs to enter into the criteria of whether something constitutes homoeopathic practice. It seems to me that the less that has to enter into it, the clearer it will be and the easier to include all homoeopathic practice. But it's always interesting to hear of these insights into how (possibly) it all works!
Cheers --
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
I think you could well be right, at least in part, as to homoeopathy's mechanisms of action. We're increasingly fortunate in enjoying the benefits of independent-minded researchers digging into what goes on after administration of a homoeopathic medicine, aren't we.
In pursuing this particular discussion, it may be simpler and infinitely less fraught to leave aside questions both of intent and of mechanism, as neither really needs to enter into the criteria of whether something constitutes homoeopathic practice. It seems to me that the less that has to enter into it, the clearer it will be and the easier to include all homoeopathic practice. But it's always interesting to hear of these insights into how (possibly) it all works!
Cheers --
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Hmm… I did use the word "use" there: use of the substance. It could be more explicit, perhaps, though "as the patient's medicine" may cover it.
The important question may be whether anything beyond use of that medicine is absolutely required in order for it to constitute homoeopathy. If I give no other medicine, offer no follow-up, never see or hear of my patient again, and don't know whether the medicine succeeded in doing anything -- have I nevertheless, in having given that substance to the best of my ability, practised homoeopathy? I would argue strongly that I have: that all other requirements and safeguards, all other modes of care and watchfulness, though they be invaluable and offer far more finesse in the outcome and undoubtedly increase chances of success, nevertheless are not a necessary part of what homoeopathy essentially is. Valuable refinements they may be, but surely the question we must address is what constitutes homoeopathy at its most basic, stripping away everything else. Unless we are able to do that, there must be absolutely no prospect of reaching a shared understanding of what it is.
That's why, for instance, potency has no bearing upon what homoeopathy is. Of course potency is invaluable; but without it, we may still practise homoeopathy. Similarly: of course followup is invaluable! -- but without it, we may still practise homoeopathy (however briefly!).
What do you think?
Cheers!
John
The important question may be whether anything beyond use of that medicine is absolutely required in order for it to constitute homoeopathy. If I give no other medicine, offer no follow-up, never see or hear of my patient again, and don't know whether the medicine succeeded in doing anything -- have I nevertheless, in having given that substance to the best of my ability, practised homoeopathy? I would argue strongly that I have: that all other requirements and safeguards, all other modes of care and watchfulness, though they be invaluable and offer far more finesse in the outcome and undoubtedly increase chances of success, nevertheless are not a necessary part of what homoeopathy essentially is. Valuable refinements they may be, but surely the question we must address is what constitutes homoeopathy at its most basic, stripping away everything else. Unless we are able to do that, there must be absolutely no prospect of reaching a shared understanding of what it is.
That's why, for instance, potency has no bearing upon what homoeopathy is. Of course potency is invaluable; but without it, we may still practise homoeopathy. Similarly: of course followup is invaluable! -- but without it, we may still practise homoeopathy (however briefly!).
What do you think?
Cheers!
John
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
That might be how you see it, but we are not looking at having each one of us express his/her own definition, but have one that is clear and valid for every single person who is looking up that definition.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Sorry, Joe, can you spell out what you're saying here? Are you saying that a definition such as the last I mentioned is not clear enough? Or not valid? I'm unclear as to your message.
Thanks!
John
Thanks!
John
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Not clear enough, as it seems to me to define the remedy but not what homeopathy is...not simple enough...
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Homoeopathy at its simplest must surely be administration of that remedy, mustn't it? How much simpler can it get than that? Maybe I'm missing your point. Thanks, Joe --
John
John
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
But it does not include how you get to that remedy, whether it is therapeutic modality or something else. Shouldn't that be part of the definition?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
healthinfo6
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
“Tis not enough to help the feeble up, but to support him after…” William Shakespeare
Susan
Susan
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Hi, Joe --
Hmm…
This is the version under the microscope:
"use, as the patient's medicine, of the substance whose observed effects upon healthy people most closely resemble the patient's symptoms".
Already I see imperfections in it, but, leaving it as it is for the moment: I'd have thought the use of "medicine", "patient", and "symptoms" sufficient to indicate therapy; am I wrong about that?
As to the means of getting to that remedy: it seems to me that we should be trying to capture the effort to prescribe via symptom similarity (on a basis of relevant knowledge of patient and medicinal symptoms) without being unnecessarily specific as to the techniques for doing so. I say this because specifying particular techniques would, cut out other (inferior and superior) techniques that may reach the simillimum just as surely. So, for instance, we might specify the use of materia medica but be outmoded by the introduction of electronic means of storing information; we might specify repertories, with the same effect. About all I can find to say about it is that the symptoms of the one must become a guide as to the relevant symptoms of the other, with an effort -- using whatever tools be to hand, even if that is, as in Hahnemann's case, little more than a good memory -- to match the latter to the former. Anything more than this would, I suggest, be too specific. But I'd be interested to know what else this may overlook.
Cheers!
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
Hmm…
This is the version under the microscope:
"use, as the patient's medicine, of the substance whose observed effects upon healthy people most closely resemble the patient's symptoms".
Already I see imperfections in it, but, leaving it as it is for the moment: I'd have thought the use of "medicine", "patient", and "symptoms" sufficient to indicate therapy; am I wrong about that?
As to the means of getting to that remedy: it seems to me that we should be trying to capture the effort to prescribe via symptom similarity (on a basis of relevant knowledge of patient and medicinal symptoms) without being unnecessarily specific as to the techniques for doing so. I say this because specifying particular techniques would, cut out other (inferior and superior) techniques that may reach the simillimum just as surely. So, for instance, we might specify the use of materia medica but be outmoded by the introduction of electronic means of storing information; we might specify repertories, with the same effect. About all I can find to say about it is that the symptoms of the one must become a guide as to the relevant symptoms of the other, with an effort -- using whatever tools be to hand, even if that is, as in Hahnemann's case, little more than a good memory -- to match the latter to the former. Anything more than this would, I suggest, be too specific. But I'd be interested to know what else this may overlook.
Cheers!
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.