While I agree in spirit there are many problems-
1) Treating severe trauma esp. to the head has become a specialized
field - even GPs in allopathy do not get to do it - it is highly
doubtful if in such a specialized field alternative medicines will be
considered...
2) For all the experience/capabilities we have for treating injuries -
our experience with trauma like this - brain stem injury etc- is
limited.We can only say that it will be an experimental step at
best-how many cases of brain stem injury have we treated?
3)For all our hope, we cannot say that our medicines will definitely
act . I have written before of 2 rabies cases. One a homeopathic
doctor - another a homeopathy enthusiast. Following a dog bite both
refused allopathy prophylaxis and medical care and subsequently died.
Medicines like Hydrophobinum and others like Stramonium etc. were
given- to no avail. Even Gandhi was criticized for not allowing
allopathic treatment for his ailing wife and she subsequently died. (
Not that allopathy would have saved all of them)- but at least shows
that advocating homeopathy for such cases is different - actually
effecting a cure is different.
4)Cases like this subdue the vital force itself. We do not know if
there is enough turnaround time for the medicine to induce a healing
reaction from the vital force. These conditions perhaps fall into the
category for which even Hahnemann suggested allopathic care.
5)Yes - in an ideal world all modalities should be available for the
patient and his/her care must be the only concern of every medical
practitioner. Of course we know that this is a political world and we
know that "all are equal but some are more equal than others ".
When we have people within our groups who are set dead against
allopathy, we should not be surprised when that feeling is reciprocated.
--- In
minutus@yahoogroups.com, Jean Doherty wrote: