An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: combo meds'; combo rmeds; SPAM -- combo meds]

[MMGM]

Desirable to trim posts.
Yr. this email was 234KB
Yes, especially in France and Belgium where you cannot see/treat patients unless you are an MD, unless laws have become more liberal since I left.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[Varun Gupta]

Nice posts Liz.........
Varun
Yes, especially in France and Belgium where you cannot see/treat patients unless you are an MD, unless laws have become more liberal since I left.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[Shannon Nelson]

Again, these are questions that most of the practicing homeopaths on this list *undoubtedly* know the answers to. If you *truly* do not know, I am quite surprised.'
I am practicing homeopathy, using clinical information rather than proving information. Clinical information *is* equally as necessary as proving informaiton. It's ideal to have both.
I would not use a remedy with no MM--as this would mean there is no guidance for its use, and no reason to think it may apply to my pt. I might, however, use a rx whose MM comes from clinical sources rather than proving.
Which I would not agree with...
This is not the case.
It's only that the matching is done with clinical information rather than proving information. You may recall Luise in past years pointing out that our traditional uses for Arnica are not contained in any provings of Arnica--I have not myself read the provings of Arnica, but would be interested in seeing whether you can find provings of Arnica that include bruising and swelling--want to have a look just for fun?
Homeopathy, as it is based on matching totalities.
You will rightly note that without provings we do not have demonstration that the substance can *cause* the symptom picture we are seeking to cure. And then I will say okay, so call me a homeopath making occasional discretionary use of not-yet-proven-remedies and leave it at that.

I doubt that I will see any reason for pursuing this thread farther, but have your last word if you like...

Shannon

[RichardS]

You ask for the questions to be posted in a non-combative nature and I do so. Now a flippant response again. Asking for the questions to be repeated to take into consideration of your individual needs and feelings and then having them posted in that way only to not answer them again is disrespectful and offensive.
So I ask them again even to your amazed surprise...Chalking up what some may know or not know about how you practice and your qualified degree of surprise is irrelevant. So there is to your dismay, "doubt" on my part about "truly" knowing. Please do excuse me in this regard I do apologize.
So if not Classical Homeopathy, what name do you interject and use to describe the practice of giving a medicine with no proving?
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

On Dec 8, 2010, at 8:14 AM, RichardS wrote:
? Sorry, didn't mean to be flippant. Which part was flippant?
I have assumed that you realize that clinical materia medica is a valid and important part of our materia medica, and has been from the start. Hahnemann himself did not attempt to limit his prescribing method to *only* what came from provings, and much essential information about remedies' usefulness can *only* be obtained through clinical experience with their usage. I assume(d) you would be aware of this. I do not deny that proving information is also important; I do not deny that our *goal* is to begin with a proving picture.
? Sorry, I thought I had answered.
What question(s) did I not answer?
Well, I do not attempt to find a name for every decision I make as a homeopath! As I said somewhere, if appropriate I would note if suggesting a remedy on purely clinical--or other--basis, rather than standard homeopathic approach; I would not feel a need to try to label the suggesiton itself.

But perhaps we could call it "clinical homeopathy"--although that name encompasses a great deal more too, and I would not call myself a "clinical homeopath".

Shannon

[Liz Brynin]

Dear John
Yet again, you are being presumptuous! You presume that I try to have all things my way, and you presume that I suffer disappointments. Worse still, you presume that this will remain the template for (my) (your) professional life." You know nothing of me, my practice, my outlook on life, but you feel entitled to make these observations.
Turn the mirror on yourself, John.
Liz

[John Harvey]

Dear Shannon,

I struggle to understand how somebody can complete a physics degree, read and claim to understand the Organon, receive fantastic advice from truly articulate professionals who have explained important aspects of the Organon to her ad nauseam, partake of discussions to clarify those aspects she has trouble with, state her fresh understanding, agree that homoeopathy is as Hahnemann defined it -- and then still, after all these years, come out with exactly the same uninformed self-contradictory nonsense as you have repeated below. Tell me: is it a gift?
Let me quote from somebody whose opinion I respected at the time.

"It would be foolhardy reinvent the definition of homoeopathy to make it more inclusive the the when you really talking about different approaches -- it is just confusing for anyone trying to understand what is what and opens us up to criticism."

Can you really claim to disagree with this?
If you think about what Hahnemann meant when he wrote that we can know a patient's state only through his symptoms and that we can know a medicine's properties only by its actions in deranging health; if you think about his repeated insistence that a homoeopathic practitioner can prescribe only upon a basis of knowing both; what is there to conclude but that the practice of homoeopathy entails those things?
When you further think about Hahnemann's utter rejection, upon the basis of a vast experience and medical research, of the applicability of any clinical successes as a basis for future treatments -- this being the Hahnemann who invented homoeopathy and developed it over decades and the same Hahnemann who had previously practised with an eye to clinical successes -- is it even plausible that he overlooked the possible value of clinical successes in making good guesses as to homoeopathic indications, i.e. pathogenetic symptoms?
Let's bring ourselves down to earth and stop imagining we might have outthought the man in entertaining this simplistic, even childish, notion.
Kind regards --
John

[John Harvey]

Sorry, Liz -- what phase have you spun into now? This is the manic withdrawal phase, is it? Would you like perhaps to engage in discussing anything without changing phase? Evidence, if you like? How Hahnemann could have been wrong in defining homoeopathy to exclude polypharmacy, maybe? How much more clearly you understand any single medicine than he did, and how that leads you to conclude that you can understand no single medicine's effects as well as you understand the effects of cocktails?

Choose your subject, Liz, and let's hear something sensible from you. I'm still awaiting with interest a single coherent statement from you on the subject of polypharmacy.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[Liz Brynin]

Dear John
I haven't 'spun off' into any other phase - simply returning to a well-worn theme - a refusal to take your insults lying down.
I find you increasingly offensive. You are unable to debate anything that differs from your narrow path without bludgeoning your oponent with insults, sarcasm and frankly nasty innuendos.
I'm trying not to be offensive myself - just state the facts.
I am tired of being attacked by you. This is not discussion - this is verbal abuse.
Liz

[John Harvey]

Thanks, Liz. Nothing of substance to say, then? No evidence for polypharmacy's inclusion in Hahnemann's meaning of homoeopathy?

If that's the case, then I wonder why you got so involved in this thread, which addressed the ethics of misrepresenting polypharmacy as homoeopathy and whether a practitioner who does so is willing to forgo the fee the patient expected to pay for a homoeopathic consultation. I'm not asking that you justify your position; I was simply interested to know whether any single practitioner had the ethical gumption to take the opposite one.

Thanks, anyway, for making your stance clear.

Cheers --

John