Minutus

yerewan wrote:
Makes no difference what kind of thing goes in my body - energy or
chemical - I need to know what it is
I do not let people give me electric shocks and think it okay because
"it is just energy" for example.
There is a third choice: find a treatment that is not secret:-)
I'd stay that way till I found it:-)
I take nothing that I have not studied the drug monograph for on line.
Says who!
Nobody in their right mind dopes that - drugs are a leading cause of
death, and the LAW states that EVERY prescription is accompanied by a
full drug monograph with side effects etc.
That may be YOUR choice - to feel more pain when knowing the remedy -
but you should not impose that choice on others.
)
They deserve the right to be making their OWN choices don't you think?.

NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

I tried telling the patient everything and telling them nothing.
After
finding that no standard seemed to work, I do put the name of the
remedy on the bottle, but often ask that they don't read up about the
remedy
before taking it. Most seem to be OK with this. Also, when a remedy
really helps, relieves pain, improves mood and sleep, etc., they care
a
lot less what the remedy is and are just glad for the relief. I also
offer to give them info - after they have started taking the remedy.
I
think there has to be some level of trust between patient and
homeopath, although I don't expect or want it to be open-ended!

Where it all becomes more sticky is where placebo is concerned,
legally
and also in the beer truck scenario. You can't write the content on
the bottle, obviously defeats the purpose. But that's not a reason
not
to give it as needed. So what to write? I know of different
systems,
writing P before the potency, writing Sac Lac in the hope the patient
won't "google" it, writing a potency that most homeopaths will know
is
non-existent, etc. but what about the layperson or conventional MD -
how will they know that all the patient received is placebo and
that's
not why he's now in the emergency room....

This is very much not part of naturopathic work, very much the work
of
homeopathic case management. I'd be really interested to hear how
others handle placebo labelling.

Regards,
Vera
(snip)
line.

Well I expected nothing else from you, your character suppositions not withstanding. Why
don't you come and rally the TX. state legislature before they are out of session so that
they 1) Acknowledge Homeopathy at all, and 2) Make it illegal for a Homeopath to give a
rx. w/o the client knowing it's original substance.
My legitimate reasoning is "your" cop out. If my client base was throwing the rx. out then
why do they come back? From now on I will suggest that as per Irenes suggestion they get
their "head read" ASAP. You do not second guess your doctor here in the states. Many
clients bring in a long list of prescription meds and have only an elementary
understanding of why they are on it, or what the side-effects are. I would venture that less
than 2% of people now what the base substance is of their meds. Just because you are
different does not mean my clients are.
I do use placebos. If you do not then I suppose your gross lack of experience is not
needed on this subject. As for the hypochodria question, when was the last time you told
them they were a a hypochodriac? I suppose it would be non-constructive to tell a cat as
much?
And your dumbing down of the Tub. example is so illogical I cannot even respond. Try
writing when your not so wound up and sitting tall on your cat........errrrrr soapbox.
And what is all of this unloading of "paternal" non-sense? Sounds like a cop out to me.

Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote:

Mm, to tell, or not to tell... Sure sounds like another case for
"individualizing"!

Irene, I'm curious--when that homeopath gave you the rx to take but
would not tell you what it was, why did you say "thank you, then took
it home and flushed it", rather than either giving her the option to
tell you, knowing that otherwise you would not take it, or at least let
her know that for some people the "don't tell" approach is not
acceptable? Wouldn't it have been more honest to 'fess up, as well as
at least giving her a *chance* to change her tack?
Shannon

Putting in my two cents worth...
I've always found that patients are LESS likely to try something on their own if I teach them the basis on which the remedy was chosen ( -- the concept of totality -- Lord knows it's complex enough! -- offputting for self-treatment, to say the least), and that the remedy will sound different in every source they find, because the remedies are so complex. I do tell them what the remedy is, because if I'm the patient, I strongly dislike the secrecy. Also, when I end up treating someone who's in the past seen another homeopath who hasn't told them the remedies they've been given, it means we have to start over again fron scratch, with no information about what remedies they've responded to in the past -- that's also unfair for the patient.
Rosemary
________________________________

Kathleen Ramsey wrote:

It's against the pharmacy laws in USA as well. Homeopaths here may only
"suggest" a remedy (unless they are also MDs - or NDs in a state that
licences NDs - some do, some don't.)
To withhold the remedy name is NOT suggesting it - it is prescribing,
since the client is not making the choice of what to take based on
suggestion.
I think if that went to court in USA, ("claiming to "suggest" a
remedy with unknown contents) the homeopath would be in deep hot water
for prescribing medicine without a pharmacy or MD license.
With or without the legalities - I think it is wrong for good
reasons - all the ones you stated for starters.
Very good point.
USA pharmacy law - in this state of WA anyway - DOES require labels, and
the law says the label MUST include all the information that was on the
original container if it is supplied or sold in a new container.
I was held to that requirement myself here as I import some remedies
and sell them - ones for cats and dogs made from vaccines and not
available in USA. My labels were to standard - but had they not been, I
could have been accused of practising medicine without a license OR of
breaking the pharmacy laws.

So I think any homeopath in USA who does not label his remedies, is
skating on thin ice at best - legally - but more important - ethically
for the reason you state and likely others:

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

No I think it is a case of the *client* has the right to choose at the
very least - it is not up to the homeopath to make that choice - and
even if ther cleitn does nto want to know - they need to be given it (in
an envelope if they wish) - for safety reasons at least!
Correct - they would not tell me even though I stated I wanted to know
and that it was not my policy to swallow unknowns.
Because if I said anything else it would have been anything but polite
and "thank you" was the best I could manage without making small
mushroom shaped cloud:-)
Oh she had the option - I asked her anmd told her I would not take an
unknown. She still refused to tell, just laughed me off and said it
"Irene's medicine".

Bear ion mind I had just been grilled for an hour on subjects I had no
wish to discuss as I saw no relevance and none was suggested - so by
then I was an emotional wreck. If I wanted a Freudian analysis I'd have
gone to a shrink. I was not in a position to think straight - I was very
vulnerable.
I was later extremely angry at how I'd been taken advantage of. You
can say it was my choice by not walking out - but the cleitn who is
seriously ill is at a serious disadvantage in that regard wanting to do
what's needed to get well.
The bottom line is that she had the time to waste - and that was her
choice - but I did not have the time to waste - and there was no way I
knew ahead of time that mine would be wasted.
Only at the end did she come up with the secret remedy - making my
visit, my trauma and my time and money ALL a waste.

I do not think homeopaths have the right to hold clients over a barrel
that way. Refusing the remedy contents was fraud in my book - I had
*spent* the time, effort and energy - and all for naught. I have a RIGHT
to know what's in the remedy - and to get value for my time as a client
- I got neither.
She didn't care.
She tried to make light of it, told me I'd soon see it was fine, put the
remedy in my bag and went out of the room - I could either "blow up" at
her refusal - or go away.
She had lots of chance - I left in tears of frustration though I hid
them till away from there.

I consider her a charlatan. She crooked me out of an afternoon, and
caused much unnecessary trauma. I do not care whether her remedy was
well chosen or not. I felt abused by her. That is not okay. Homeopaths
need to remember that the client is the boss - NOT the homeopath.
It is not the homeopath who can decide on secrecy of remedy.

NAmaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Paul Booyse wrote:

So you are afraid of a debate on the remedy and are not sure of your choice?
Then with respect perhaps the patient DOES know something you missed?

I sometimes get a client looking up the remedy on line in Boericke or
Clarke - both freely available on line - or else they want to know why I
do not use the remedy chosen by a previous homeopath - and I am very
happy to respond to any questions.
But I seldom get them as I always explain that the remedy I find is the
BEST match I can find based on client symptoms *within* the remedy.
(What else is in the remedy is always irrelevant.)
I send a rubric list with my remedy suggestion - and sometimes a few
comments from the MM that are not in rubrics - and if I do not get "Gee
that rubric list looks like the individual" - then I want to know why,
because maybe I missed something.
I am not shy to be told I missed something - it's not in the
interests of my client to miss something so I DO want to know - my ego
is not part of this!!! Ego here is not in client interests, and I can
see no other reason to withhold the remedy name!

But more often than not - I get a comment much like the one I got from
my most recent client who has a cat with feline AIDS: (I changed the
name to it's first letter only for privacy reasons - the rest is verbatim):
"When I looked through the list of Rubrics I saw P! There were a couple
of rubrics that jumped out at me because they really are P although I
didn't mention the traits in his history. These were competitive,
confident, determined, dictatorial,They really are P to a T. Also
contradiction, I'm not sure if I have understood this in its correct
context but P is confident, determined and independent yet he is also
very insecure."
I ask my clients to look for response - and how to detect a positive
one; I give them several typical positive response examples - so they
have a job to do to look for them (what you think about expands) - and I
also mention briefly how to detect the unlikely event of an aggravation
(and what it is likely to look like and what to do if it happens.)
That way they are busy looking for positives but don't worry about
aggravation as they know in advance what to expect and do and that it is
unlikely.

Even if a homeopath is the client I like to tell them all this basic
stuff as when one is ill - one does not think straight - and some hand
holding that covers the bases and encourages positivity, goes a LONG way.
And your answer was?
Are you AFRAID to be challenged on remedy choice?
To me it's an honor that the client trusts me enough to ask, and I am
more than happy to discuss my reasons/rubrics/MM study, and listen to
what the client feels does or does not fit.
I use a very extensive questionnaire so that this hardly ever happens
- but if I miss something I want to know - and if the questionnaire was
complete - I can always explain my choice.

I feel if we can not explain the choice - why make it?

Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Dear Irene,



Irene- there is no way I could have left it like that. I think you owe it to
yourself to write her a letter putting in it some of the points you have
expressed on this list. In that way you will feel you have done something
and you never know she might understand the message. I feel for you!

Regards
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

I also tell them even if they are H's or students of H. So what if they look it up?

If they disagree I want them to be able to articulate why. That will give me additional and very useful info about the case. I have had only positive feedback from telling people the Rx never negative. In fact if H's or students of, why would I not want to discuss it with them . IF it means educating Px then fine, if they don't want a particular Rx e.g. Apis because they are Buddhist, or syph because they're squeamish, that is their choice not mine to sneak it to them (or offer it radionically made). But if I have explained well it won't be problem. If someone really want to argue the Rx then I point out my recommendation but explain that they are perfectly entitled to take whatever Rx they prefer. Why should I be attached to MY prescription?

It is no biggie to talk to the Px and explain what /why etc. Why should that be a problem?

I remember when first an patient, then an H student then a homeopath myself, going to Homeopaths and sometimes getting what to me seemed like this 'holier than thou' attitude. It came across as a 'control' game, or a way to keep them above me. I remember thay so often would also sit with te light ( be it window or desk light) behind them, , putting them slightly in the shade, not hugely but it meant you had to try that bit harder to see their eye. I also noticed ( now I was looking) that they sat in a slightly higher chair. I found it inconsiderate at best, demeaning at worst..

Whether intended or not this was the perception of me, the patient. I vowed never to do that to my Patients. It is so easy to slip on the jacket of self importance when consulting. My experience is that that a stance does not improve one's ability to communicate or to find the Rx. it is self defence for the homeopaths insecurities.

In fact my first hint of what was to come was when I sat in with certain homepath. (others would know who I mean if I gave a few more details lol) Her excessively patronising attitude to student homeopaths ( feedback from others concurred) confirmed in my mind that there were some who were 'playing consultant'. i.e. they must really want to be allopaths with white coats and fawning acolytes beause they certainly were not demonstrating holistic principles, except where it made them look good ( in lectures etc)

As many arguements there are for witholding Rx info, there are for not witholding it. It is a personal choice of the practitioner. I would recommend challenging onesself on why one holds those beliefs.

The ONLY time I've lost Pxs is when I have insisted they pay full whack for missed appointments (with no good reason) !lol