Liz,
Thankyou for posting your case, and giving space for all the discussion
around it.
Chris,
I would be really interested to hear about your Merc case - was there a
direction of cure that you observed so that you were sure there was no
suppression?
Gail
--- In
minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Brynin" wrote:
that she hated her husband because of how he had hurt the whole family.
Maybe I should have probed more, but the poor woman was so ashamed of
the whole story, and had such difficulty telling it to me that I didn't
dare - I just received what she told me. I think it took a lot of
courage to come to that initial consultation.
they were disfunctional anyway. Her son (who she discovered had been
self-harming since he found out about the dad) went off to the States,
her husband was convicted and is still in prison and she has sold the
family flat and bought a new place for herself. I met her again about a
year or so later and she was doing very well - happy! And no dandruff or
bald patches!
in a row
are unrelated or unchanged during states of illhealth. So as
constitutional concomitants, they don't seem relevant.
harshly by others is understandable under those circumstances. I was
referring to the stand out Nat mur characteristic "Hatred towards those
that have injured him". And the tendency for them to fly off the handle
in angry outbursts if anyone comes too near to try and comfort or
placate - that really just makes everything so much worse. It's palpable
and not a little intimidating, you just KNOW to leave them alone. They
cry themselves into a state of aggravation and a thumping headache. It's
a big thing to actually *hate* somebody. We can feel hurt, betrayed,
indignant, ashamed, irritated but be willing to forgive in an instant if
we feel the person has understood what their impact on us has been. When
we *hate* somebody, now THAT is closed off! There's little room to move
on that perspective! If somebody says to me, "I hate blah blah..." I
always make sure that's what they actually feel and they're not just
using it as a turn of phrase. So if she spoke about her problems in
those terms, it would have been a standout Nat mur symptom to me, as
opposed to someone who was deeply embarrassed by the circumstances she
found herself in and felt better after having a cry - that is still
indeterminate.
little girl?
in a row
painfully embarrassed - sat sideways, avoided looking at me, and was on
the verge of tears but would not let them come out.
was a teenager. Likewise, the food likes and dislikes she mentioned as
having always been like that - could not drink tea as a girl because of
'bits' in it. The marriage had been poor for several years as he was
also an alcoholic, and she had suffered continual humiliation and shame
because of this. I saw no problem therefore with including these food
details - in effect, I approached the whole case from a 'totality' point
of view because of the long-standing nature of her problems.
husband's behaviour before she even knew what was going on. She was also
angry because her husband had humiliated her. She didn't talk about
'hatred' or flying off the handle - not sure what you mean by this.
in a row
difficult to imagine the depth of emotional trauma she underwent. By
characterstics I meant the sensations and modalities running through the
case at that current time. The Desires Coffee, and Aversion to slimy
food modalities don't really seem relevant unless they only appeared
around the same time as the onset of the main complaint. How would you
say they actually impacted the skin eruption in a characteristic way,
did they make the eruption bleed, or make her scratch intensely? If not,
why include them in a Reperorization unless you're looking for rubrics
that might nicely confirm your preconceived remedy choice?
her husband had been doing that she now harboured deep *hatred* towards
him? Or that she would easily fly off the handle if pressed too hard?
differentiation to make because even though we automatically think "Nat
mur" when we're confronted with a deeply emotionally traumatised patient
who is apparently "closed off" through guilt, shame, disappointment or
remorse, that remedy was never actually rated *characteristically* in
the original rubric: "aggravated from emotions, anger with quiet grief
and silent disappointment" or even: "aggravated by emotional abuse, with
grief and sorrow". Surprising, isn't it?? It's status just been
reinvented or clinically elevated to characteristic grade over time in
newer repertories as an essential Nat mur keynote essence. In fact,
there are many remedies that more closely differentiate "closed off"
states of emotional trauma.
characteristics, all too often when we're taught remedies by shortcut
keynotes and emotional essences, we just go... Nat mur = grief and
Ignatia = acute hysterical grief. And then, if we've been influenced by
the populist teachings like that of the naturopath R. Murphy, we think
"I'll use a nice gentle 6C potency twice a day for a few weeks..." A lot
of us here did that type of (over)prescribing too once upon a time. What
we found is, if you hit upon the simillimum first off and overprescribed
daily it was easy to mess up cases big time. Just as Hahnemann warned.
If you prescribed an imperfect remedy, and at least didn't change
remedies too often, you might get away pushing symptoms under the radar.
Too many messed up cases to make the odd reasonable outcome seem
worthwhile. That's what we found out.
)