Minutus

Dear Joy,
I really would like to discuss cases in full, but I hesitate because I don't often see what is my idea of a very full description of cases. The detail that one sees in the presentations of Mangialavori or Sankaran are in my eyes ideal. They present their cases always with a specific teaching point. When I am troubled by a case, I lack that theretical or clinical rubric building content. For that reason, I normally would only present the aspect of the case that might be of general interest, or a sx that can't find a rubric... Never a full case. I don't know how others feel. Is there an ettiquette for presenting a case that one is having trouble with? Is it helpful to post sx's, or to describe situations in detail? Or is this all just a matter of common sense and taste? If lots of people reply to a case, usually its because there is some juicy content. I am not sure the number of replies is a measure of good case presentation of a full case.
Blessings,
Ellen

Dear Ellen, I was about to write that I don¹t think there is an etiquette on
presenting cases that one is having a problem with, but there have been many
cases that have asked for help and the replies reflect a wish to know more
about the case so that we can help in a more worthwhile manner. So, bearing
in mind that we should always have permission of the client involved to post
cases, I think we should give as much detail as possible when requesting
general help regarding a case.

If we just want help with a difficult rubric (that may or may not actually
exist) then that is a much different request.

My criticism regarding the case linked with this thread is that the request
was regarding really basic repping sx that surely shouldn¹t need any help.
If a prescriber is so inexperienced (and we have no way of knowing) and they
take our rx suggestions and prescribe them with equal lack of experience
then damage can be done and I wouldn¹t want this sort of poor case
taking/prescribing to be linked with this group and I am guessing that
others might feel the same and that is why no-one else replied.

I personally would love to see a return to case analysis and discussion on
this list and I hope you won¹t feel too hesitant about this. Cases don¹t
have to be juicy to qualify )

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 17/2/05 2:46 pm, Ellen Madono at ellen.madono@verizon.net wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Joy,
I agree. Cases are of the deepest interest to me too. My training is cultural anthopology. I feel that there is an art to good case reporting. I am new to this, but without being too clear about my criterion, I do see better and worse examples. Some descriptions are just too vague for me to follow. I am guilty of these vague presentations also. I have the feeling that too much detail will bore those with a general interest.
Blessings,
Ellen

Dear Joy & Ellen,
I am not sure that to be posted, a case must be a model teaching case
as a seminar teacher might be expected to produce. Many cases in old
journals and textbooks do not give a lot ofdetails, and yet they are
have great learning value! I don't think we should have excessively
high standards here. If a case isn't clear let any interested person
ask for more detail. However anyone sending a case needs to remember
the responsibility for any prescription remains with himself/herself.
My main point is more in relation to philosophy. Our so-called drug
pictures/essences etc are abstractions. For example, Jan Scholten
gives indications for the series and stages of the periodic table. So
does Sankaran -- but they are different! And the Complete Repertory,
say, and Murphy give different remedies for rubrics with the same
title. Our real source material is found in the materia medicae of
Hahnemann, Allen, Hering, chiefly. In nature, ie, in patients,
symptoms may be combined in ways that point to a remedy without
conforming to any 'drug picture'. If homeopathy had depended on
lengthy explorations into every patient's psyche, it would never have
got off the ground.

Richard

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono" wrote:
is cultural anthopology. I feel that there is an art to good case
reporting. I am new to this, but without being too clear about my
criterion, I do see better and worse examples. Some descriptions are
just too vague for me to follow. I am guilty of these vague
presentations also. I have the feeling that too much detail will bore
those with a general interest.
etiquette on
been many
know more
So, bearing
involved to post
requesting
actually
the request
any help.
knowing) and they
experience
discussion on
don¹t
because I don't
The detail
are in my eyes
point. When
rubric building
aspect of the
a rubric...
ettiquette for
helpful to post
a matter of
usually its
of replies is a
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation
offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any
purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the
recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual
members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special,
punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@y... to receive a single
daily digest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service.

Joy,

Just so you don't think you're hanging out there in the wind by yourself, I
do share your concerns about the training, experience, and suitability to
practice of "homeopaths" who can't repertorize elementary symptoms. I'm
also concerned about those who post questions about whether homeopathy can
help them with problem X, Y, or Z -- and are promptly deluged with remedy
suggestions they may not be capable of differentiating.

We do our profession no favor by making it sound as if homeopathy is so
simple it's foolproof. It's not. You do need to know what you're doing to
get good results and not end up discouraged and thinking that homeopathy
doesn't work.

Peace,
Cinnabar

Woops! Joy: I didn't mean to imply that I minded a criticism of my
response etc, 'criticism' is not something bad in my view. Nor did I
mean to be truculent which emailed stuff can easily look when you see
it on the screen. and I don't know enough smilies to punctuate
properly
I'm more interested in the issues around all this... and I still think
there shouldn't be any policing or slapping of wrists directed at
anyone who sends in a case, however elementary or poorly written it
might seem. why not just ask for more info if it's not enough?
As for sulphur, it's interesting as we know it as slovenly etc, but
there's so often a polarity isn't there in remedies? And there's a
cultural element -- we in the UK are by and large a better-washed lot
than we were, say, 30 or 40 yrs ago.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
writing about
difficult
process, it was
when
that
people get
possibly

Sulphur is bold type in the Haughty rubric and that is where the discrepancy
lies, that is where the diseased state is, the core delusion, so to speak,
not being able to reconcile these 2 extremes. It is often the haughtiness
that prevents them from washing, delusion rags are beautiful etc, and that
is why they don¹t wash, don¹t like washing. If you want to be leaning
towards the compulsive washers, look towards lac caninum, or mercury,
syphilinum and others and these all have disgust attached to them.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 16/2/05 9:31 pm, Richard at richardlaing@ntlworld.com wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It seems that defining Sulphur so exclusively in the haughtiness preventing them from washing may prevent Sulphur prescriptions that are needed in the fastidious well-washed person whose condition fits other Sulphur physicals and mentals (including haughtiness). Zaren and Morrison present the fastidious option of Sulphur, Isn't there a risk of stereotyping remedies here and excessively narrowing their prescription? Are you saying that Sulphur must be dirty, and if he/she isn't, not to prescribe it? Or that Sulphur must be haughty?
Regards,
Vera

J Lucas wrote:
Sulphur is bold type in the Haughty rubric and that is where the discrepancy
lies, that is where the diseased state is, the core delusion, so to speak,
not being able to reconcile these 2 extremes. It is often the haughtiness
that prevents them from washing, delusion rags are beautiful etc, and that
is why they don¹t wash, don¹t like washing. If you want to be leaning
towards the compulsive washers, look towards lac caninum, or mercury,
syphilinum and others and these all have disgust attached to them.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 16/2/05 9:31 pm, Richard at richardlaing@ntlworld.com wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The comments were made with reference to the few details of the case that
were posted and no stereotyping or narrowing was intended but these issues
are crucial to Sulphur. Sulphur can be both fastidious and haughty but have
a disregard for cleanliness. The concept of cleanliness can be extensive and
not just confined to washing.

They can be hoarders, their homes can be jammed full of collected objects,
they will know what they have in detail (fastidious) but it will be
irrelevant if those objects are clean or not because the hoarding is the
important thing. They can be intensely detailed philosophers, another side
of being fastidious, but won't know when to stop their theorising, it has no
end, it goes on and on with no regard to the impact of the presentation -
another aspect of being unclean, unsorted. They can demand the possession of
the most expensive clothing but there will probably be a dirty stain on them
somewhere, this haughtiness has a snob like quality to it. Of they just have
to wear red or yellow socks, to get noticed, but the rest of their
appearance is a mess. So there is this interlocking of fastidious,
haughtiness and disregard for presentation.

But at the end of the day Sulphur can be any part of what is presented in
the materia medica.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 17/2/05 11:56 am, VR VR at vr_homeopathy@yahoo.com wrote: