personally I like the one "we are the ones using this apparently off the wall method which in many cases is the only thing that works" - but I doubt anyone else would find it useful...
I don't think we should accept that allopathy does not need to introduce itself. There are certain definitions where a coherent definition of homeopathy could be placed opposite - and also certain definitions which can help us work towards standards of our own. Requiring that allopathy define itself I think is long overdue.
You have mentioned doctors coming out of approved institutes and refer to stringent licensing exams all over the world. Are the world-wide standards all the same? Which issues do these standards address? Is there a basic level of knowledge required from all practitioners whatever field of medicine they practice? You have already stated that allopathy uses potentially dangerous drugs - is there a clear worldwide standard for use of the drugs that can be defined? I think part of the first step towards a useful definition of homeopathy is to realize that in allopathy the definitions are not quite so broad and consensual as they would like to have us believe. e.g. drugs have to be tested and approved before use. But how is it that the same drug can be considered dangerous in the US and banned and approved and actively promoted in Europe? So drug approval before use cannot be considered a world wide consensual definition as there are different approval bodies.
I'm also sure everyone has experienced MDs with vastly different levels of knowledge - in some cases shockingly low levels of knowledge, including little knowledge or understanding of the drugs being prescribed, and in some cases knowledge so great that the MD has a good understanding of alternative modalities as well and also in depth knowledge of the drugs and their contraindications with ordinary lifestyle elements - e.g. an MD who has a full understanding of nutrition and checks before prescribing.
I also ask whether the purpose of treatment is a relevant part of the definition. Are we coming to cure, to palliate, to ease pain, to treat the patient using any of the tools we have? What is the allopath's purpose of treatment?
Is allopathic treatment intended to be supportive, preventive, invasive, palliative, or fully curative?
I realise these questions may seem trite, perhaps even foolish to some. But I'm a homeopath - I'm used to people thinking I'm asking stupid questions (patient: it hurts, me: what does that feel like?, patient: you know, pain, me: what kind of pain, patient: don't you understand, it hurts! etc.), it adds moral fibre...
The points that I'm trying to make are:
1. Allopathy isn't the monolith it appears to be. It is true that we are fighting for survival against great financial interests, as Hahnemann did in his day, and no definition will help in the "root" of the fight, the essence if you will. To fight against the companies and their incredible and ever-increasing hold over entire continents requires a great degree of strategy and skill, and a deep understanding of those financial interests and their ramifications. Definitions are really not the issue in this part of the arena - strongly backed "champions" of homeopathy are - perhaps Dana Ulman's recent book is a step in the right direction for this purpose.
2. We are losing the PR war IMHO not only because we lack consensual definition, but also because we are not focused, not speaking the language, and, very importantly, not coordinated and not clear about the goals of the fight. What do we want here - to be allowed to practice officially, quietly and in peace? To "show them" that they are worthless and homeopathy is all? To fight "Big Pharma"? Or as one list member here wrote a couple of years ago and I never forgot it, to remain under the radar as much as possible, because otherwise we expose ourselves to regulation by the ignorant?
3. having a better definition of allopathy for ourselves can also help us sharpen our focus. Do we want to vaunt homeopathy or discredit allopathy?
It is true that everyone practises differently, especially since when we have a patient we feel we are there to help, if pure homeopathy is not helping we try to add some other practice that won't conflict. Everyone has their own red lines of what they will or will not do - but even words of encouragement have medicinal value...But to accept a very limiting definition is in itself problematic.
My purpose - although coming late to this discussion - is to try to move the thinking beyond the well worn and deepening rut it seems to be in. It does not help in any battle for the general to examine the dimensions of his own navel and try to define it. At some point he has to raise his gaze and examine the terrain and the "enemy", to decide on tactics and strategy, to find who his allies are, or to be blown off the field. Hahnemann survived, homeopathy survived, because Hahnemann found a protector.
Quite honestly, although much of the discussion has seemed very scholarly, I have not found it interesting. If a practising, active and teaching homeopath doesn't find a discussion on our very survival interesting (and I suspect there are many others who have felt the same way), our chances in any PR, internal or external, are dim at the very most.
Regards to all,
Vera
(snip)
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
Alternative Medicine
054-4640736
www.freewebs.com/verahomeopath