Thanks Irene,
Sounds very reasonable to me! Thanks for the distinctions.
Shannon
Interesting thought
-
Rosemary C Hyde PhD
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Interesting thought
Irene wrote:
"Cancer is not really the main disease so much as an after-effect of the
disease. It is one effect that can occur after a diseased immune system
is in place. The diseased immune system is the true chronic issue."
This is absolutely true. So what we're actually talking about here
("Cancer") is a situation where the chronic disease has already caused
tissue damage. At this point, we can't "cure," but we certainly can palliate
and support the patient's vital force in achieving and maintaining a state
of balance despite the incurable overall state.
In some ways when a patient comes to us with cancer, it's similar to a
diabetic whose disease has already resulted in gangrene, or a person with
cardiovascular disease who presents after having had a stroke. Cancer, like
other chronic serious diseases, can be more or less urgent, more or less
curable. It's not one single disease state. There are a few cancers (e.g.
testicular cancer, basal cell skin cancer) in which removal of a Stage I
lesion -- one that has not spread -- can result in permanent cure -- that
particular cancer will not recur. Of course, the person, without treatment,
will still have the cancer diathesis. There are other cancers, such as
ovarian or breast cancer, in which the return of the disease is virtually
guaranteed at some point -- maybe 8 or 20 years later, but "cure" doesn't
happen no matter how early the cancer or how draconian the treatments. Five
year "cure" dates don't exist with these types of cancer. And a few cancers
are slow growing enough (e.g. some prostate tumors) that they may not become
truly threatening for decades.
Most of the time, though, when a patient presents with an existing cancer,
we think of it as an emergency, in the sense that this is an end stage
process. The course of development is relatively to very rapid, and every
new development dramatically worsens the prognosis. The patient may not die
in the unaltered course of their disease for 8 months or a year and a half,
but tomorrow's metastatis will make that outcome dramatically more likely.
Let's look at a somewhat analogous situation with a different chronic
disease. When a diabetic presents to you threatened with imminent blindness
or amputation because of his or her disease, would you proceed in the same
way as you would if the person came to you with an early tendency to
slightly elevated blood sugar?
Yes, of course, the threatened diabetic necrosis, like the cancer or stroke,
is an end results of chronic disease. Personally, however, I would have a
strong sense of urgency in such a situation, because time is short and I
would want, if possible, to help the person start to heal the gangrenous
tissue before necrosis sets in.
Often, of course, this is unfortunately the type of situation in which a
cancer patients first consults a homeopath. They are desperate because the
more common means known to them can't help them avoid the development of end
stage pathology and consequences.
With a cancer patient, as with a diabetic in this kind of emergency
situation, I would want to help the person quickly start to balance his or
her system so that it can develop a state of homeostasis with the cancer,
before it,spreads to, obstructs or perforates a vital organ or system. Time
is crucial. The first priority is to treat the threatening pathology. When
the sense of emergency has been tempered, then it becomes possible to
proceed to normal chronic treatment of the underlying state. But in the
time of emergency, we need to produce rapid results to give the patient time
to respond to chronic treatment.
Such situations do not constitute an "acute disease" but they certainly are
an acute emergency.
How do people on this list respond homeopathically to such situations, and
what do you call them? How does your treatment of acute exacerbations or
end stage emergencies resemble or differ from your treatment of underlying
chronic disease or true acute diseases?
Rosemary
"Cancer is not really the main disease so much as an after-effect of the
disease. It is one effect that can occur after a diseased immune system
is in place. The diseased immune system is the true chronic issue."
This is absolutely true. So what we're actually talking about here
("Cancer") is a situation where the chronic disease has already caused
tissue damage. At this point, we can't "cure," but we certainly can palliate
and support the patient's vital force in achieving and maintaining a state
of balance despite the incurable overall state.
In some ways when a patient comes to us with cancer, it's similar to a
diabetic whose disease has already resulted in gangrene, or a person with
cardiovascular disease who presents after having had a stroke. Cancer, like
other chronic serious diseases, can be more or less urgent, more or less
curable. It's not one single disease state. There are a few cancers (e.g.
testicular cancer, basal cell skin cancer) in which removal of a Stage I
lesion -- one that has not spread -- can result in permanent cure -- that
particular cancer will not recur. Of course, the person, without treatment,
will still have the cancer diathesis. There are other cancers, such as
ovarian or breast cancer, in which the return of the disease is virtually
guaranteed at some point -- maybe 8 or 20 years later, but "cure" doesn't
happen no matter how early the cancer or how draconian the treatments. Five
year "cure" dates don't exist with these types of cancer. And a few cancers
are slow growing enough (e.g. some prostate tumors) that they may not become
truly threatening for decades.
Most of the time, though, when a patient presents with an existing cancer,
we think of it as an emergency, in the sense that this is an end stage
process. The course of development is relatively to very rapid, and every
new development dramatically worsens the prognosis. The patient may not die
in the unaltered course of their disease for 8 months or a year and a half,
but tomorrow's metastatis will make that outcome dramatically more likely.
Let's look at a somewhat analogous situation with a different chronic
disease. When a diabetic presents to you threatened with imminent blindness
or amputation because of his or her disease, would you proceed in the same
way as you would if the person came to you with an early tendency to
slightly elevated blood sugar?
Yes, of course, the threatened diabetic necrosis, like the cancer or stroke,
is an end results of chronic disease. Personally, however, I would have a
strong sense of urgency in such a situation, because time is short and I
would want, if possible, to help the person start to heal the gangrenous
tissue before necrosis sets in.
Often, of course, this is unfortunately the type of situation in which a
cancer patients first consults a homeopath. They are desperate because the
more common means known to them can't help them avoid the development of end
stage pathology and consequences.
With a cancer patient, as with a diabetic in this kind of emergency
situation, I would want to help the person quickly start to balance his or
her system so that it can develop a state of homeostasis with the cancer,
before it,spreads to, obstructs or perforates a vital organ or system. Time
is crucial. The first priority is to treat the threatening pathology. When
the sense of emergency has been tempered, then it becomes possible to
proceed to normal chronic treatment of the underlying state. But in the
time of emergency, we need to produce rapid results to give the patient time
to respond to chronic treatment.
Such situations do not constitute an "acute disease" but they certainly are
an acute emergency.
How do people on this list respond homeopathically to such situations, and
what do you call them? How does your treatment of acute exacerbations or
end stage emergencies resemble or differ from your treatment of underlying
chronic disease or true acute diseases?
Rosemary