Re: First Do Not Harm
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:41 pm
Dear Shannon, Ben, H2002, and Kathleen, thanks for your comments,
which are all helpful and illuminating. To answer a couple of
questions:
I've never encountered the fourth edition entire, but in quotations
from it Hahnemann is explicit about using one or two pillules of
poppy-seed size and not repeating the dose till improvement ceases.
In this, he is doing all he can to avoid the aggravations that seem to
be so common today, by reducing the actual size of the dose and
avoiding all repetition.
In the fifth edition, Hahnemann introduces doses in solution and the
possibility of repetition, depending on the state of the patient (and
other factors), but only on condition that
(1) the medicine be perfectly homoeopathic (to be gauged by the
response to the first dose);
(2) there has been continuous but slow and gradual improvement rather
than either none or considerable improvement day by day;
(3) the medicine be highly potentised, dissolved in water, and given
in a properly small dose; and
(4) that the potency change with every dose (Aphorisms 285 to 288).
By the way, my earlier message refers in the third paragraph to the
Organon's fifth edition, where it should say fourth edition.
Fourth edition, Aphorisms 245:
"Even one dose of the same medicine which has up to now proved
beneficial, if repeated before the improvement has begun to stand
still in every direction, will, like an untimely interference, only
aggravate the state..."
I understand why it looks as though I've brought the separate issue of
mechanical repetition into a discussion of something unrelated. But
it relates in two ways:
(1) The fourth-edition method calls for a single dose, so doses
repeated -- whether artistically or by clockwork -- are inappropriate;
twice-daily ones especially so. Again, we're talking of repetition
before the symptoms have relapsed.
(2) The fifth-edition method allows for careful repetition (before
relapse) only under the most exacting of circumstances, and one of
those is that the doses be in solution; Hahnemann writes of the
dangers of repeating a dry dose in particular, and emphasises that the
danger is greater with more frequent repetition.
So the greater frequency is a factor that aggravates the dangers of repetition.
I studied under the guidance of a practising homoeopath in Canberra
from 1976 to 1978, at the end of which year I commenced practice.
Though I remain a student of the subject and continue to practise, for
family reasons I gave up commercial practice in 1984. My only contact
with the fourth edition till recently was indirect, principally via
Kent's teachings. Through repeated readings of the _Organon_'s sixth
edition and _Chronic Diseases_, I learned some great shortcuts to
cure, but in the meantime learned much by obeying Kent's injunction to
NOT repeat the remedy short of relaps but learn to assess the effect
of the first dose. Kent was, of course, not alone amongst the great
modern practitioners in maintaining this practice.
The most important thing that I learned from actually doing the
"waiting and watching" part rather than repeating the "single dose"
part till something happened concerned patients and the relationship
between their natural symptoms and the potentised substance I'd given
them.
It's quite simple.
If you don't hold in your hands in a single dose the means to remove
the patient's (chronic) symptoms for a considerable period (months
rather than days or hours) slowly, then neither do you hold the means
to remove them rapidly.
Look into these confusing cases that arise from repetition, and ask
yourself why the practitioner repeated the dose. Start with
Hahnemann's first condition for repetition, perfect homoeopathicity,
and you generally won't get any further than that: the practitioner
had no idea whether the medicine was suitable or not before repeating
it. The medicine was repeated not for the sake of the patient, not to
accelerate a clear but slow cure, but for the sake of the
practitioner's insecurities.
How long does it take to know whether you have a clear cure, if it's a
slow one? Can you gauge it in hours, a day, two days? Kent said to
take a month, though generally it will be clear in a couple of weeks.
The prescriber who can't wait for a week has no idea, and repeats the
dose in order to make something happen. And something does happen:
discussions like these.
Large dry dose, extremely low potency, unchanging potency, and
inappropriate (not to say mechanical) repetition won't mitigate in the
slightest the several but slight and temporary problems of giving the
wrong medicine; they'll exacerbate them beyond all control and
eventually entrench them beyond all removal. Every experienced
accurate prescriber and observer will tell you that the results of
recalcitrant repetition, and PARTICULARLY of frequent repetition, of
an unchanged potency will be confusing, aggravating, disagreeable, and
occasionally dangerous. That applies as much to low potencies (30 and
below) as to high (10M and above), and as much to the LM series as to
the C series.
And that, I think, is where this discussion began!
Kind regards,
John Harvey
which are all helpful and illuminating. To answer a couple of
questions:
I've never encountered the fourth edition entire, but in quotations
from it Hahnemann is explicit about using one or two pillules of
poppy-seed size and not repeating the dose till improvement ceases.
In this, he is doing all he can to avoid the aggravations that seem to
be so common today, by reducing the actual size of the dose and
avoiding all repetition.
In the fifth edition, Hahnemann introduces doses in solution and the
possibility of repetition, depending on the state of the patient (and
other factors), but only on condition that
(1) the medicine be perfectly homoeopathic (to be gauged by the
response to the first dose);
(2) there has been continuous but slow and gradual improvement rather
than either none or considerable improvement day by day;
(3) the medicine be highly potentised, dissolved in water, and given
in a properly small dose; and
(4) that the potency change with every dose (Aphorisms 285 to 288).
By the way, my earlier message refers in the third paragraph to the
Organon's fifth edition, where it should say fourth edition.
Fourth edition, Aphorisms 245:
"Even one dose of the same medicine which has up to now proved
beneficial, if repeated before the improvement has begun to stand
still in every direction, will, like an untimely interference, only
aggravate the state..."
I understand why it looks as though I've brought the separate issue of
mechanical repetition into a discussion of something unrelated. But
it relates in two ways:
(1) The fourth-edition method calls for a single dose, so doses
repeated -- whether artistically or by clockwork -- are inappropriate;
twice-daily ones especially so. Again, we're talking of repetition
before the symptoms have relapsed.
(2) The fifth-edition method allows for careful repetition (before
relapse) only under the most exacting of circumstances, and one of
those is that the doses be in solution; Hahnemann writes of the
dangers of repeating a dry dose in particular, and emphasises that the
danger is greater with more frequent repetition.
So the greater frequency is a factor that aggravates the dangers of repetition.
I studied under the guidance of a practising homoeopath in Canberra
from 1976 to 1978, at the end of which year I commenced practice.
Though I remain a student of the subject and continue to practise, for
family reasons I gave up commercial practice in 1984. My only contact
with the fourth edition till recently was indirect, principally via
Kent's teachings. Through repeated readings of the _Organon_'s sixth
edition and _Chronic Diseases_, I learned some great shortcuts to
cure, but in the meantime learned much by obeying Kent's injunction to
NOT repeat the remedy short of relaps but learn to assess the effect
of the first dose. Kent was, of course, not alone amongst the great
modern practitioners in maintaining this practice.
The most important thing that I learned from actually doing the
"waiting and watching" part rather than repeating the "single dose"
part till something happened concerned patients and the relationship
between their natural symptoms and the potentised substance I'd given
them.
It's quite simple.
If you don't hold in your hands in a single dose the means to remove
the patient's (chronic) symptoms for a considerable period (months
rather than days or hours) slowly, then neither do you hold the means
to remove them rapidly.
Look into these confusing cases that arise from repetition, and ask
yourself why the practitioner repeated the dose. Start with
Hahnemann's first condition for repetition, perfect homoeopathicity,
and you generally won't get any further than that: the practitioner
had no idea whether the medicine was suitable or not before repeating
it. The medicine was repeated not for the sake of the patient, not to
accelerate a clear but slow cure, but for the sake of the
practitioner's insecurities.
How long does it take to know whether you have a clear cure, if it's a
slow one? Can you gauge it in hours, a day, two days? Kent said to
take a month, though generally it will be clear in a couple of weeks.
The prescriber who can't wait for a week has no idea, and repeats the
dose in order to make something happen. And something does happen:
discussions like these.
Large dry dose, extremely low potency, unchanging potency, and
inappropriate (not to say mechanical) repetition won't mitigate in the
slightest the several but slight and temporary problems of giving the
wrong medicine; they'll exacerbate them beyond all control and
eventually entrench them beyond all removal. Every experienced
accurate prescriber and observer will tell you that the results of
recalcitrant repetition, and PARTICULARLY of frequent repetition, of
an unchanged potency will be confusing, aggravating, disagreeable, and
occasionally dangerous. That applies as much to low potencies (30 and
below) as to high (10M and above), and as much to the LM series as to
the C series.
And that, I think, is where this discussion began!
Kind regards,
John Harvey
