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

[John Harvey]

Hi, Joe --

Yes, I'd go along with that, though if there's any real reason to regard ortho-bionomy or visceral manipulation (neither of which I know anything about, by the way) as in some sense homoeopathic, then it can only be by virtue of a capacity to induce a similar state of derangement to the condition under treatment. If that label can't be justified, discussion of them remains just as relevant on the basis, as you say, of their usefulness, just as we might discuss dietary needs. To have every dietetic enthusiast on the list cry discrimination that dietetics isn't considered a "kind of" homoeopathy, though, would simply add one more distraction to those we endure by the cries of those who feel discriminated against because their late discovery of polypharmacy isn't a "kind of" homoeopathy.

In common use, I think allopathy has come to be thought of as incorporating enantiopathy -- as is reflected in dictionary definitions, e.g. the Macquarie's "the method of treating disease by the use of agents producing effects different from those of the disease treated (opposed to homeopathy)". It's the understandable slide of "other" (something not the same, not the opposite, something else) into "other" (something not the same), and reflects Hahnemann's effective division of the medical world into two camps: those who know the derangements a medicine can cause and use that knowledge to prescribe homoeopathically (homoeopaths, at least at that moment!) and those who prescribe on some other basis.

Cheers!

John
That is where the term "allopathic" has to be redefined.
Although it meant "different, unknown action" in H's time, todays it has the meaning of antipathic, as most if not all drugs and herbs and other methodologies have their mode of action very well defined, not only through traditional use but through pharmacological and biochemical studies.
Mind you, much of the herbalism is in fact homeopathy in the rough; anyone interested can compare homeopathic provings and herbal materia medica.
Ortho-bionomy is known as "homeopathic osteopathy" (and IMO visceral manipulation is there too). Other techniques like acupuncture and TCM herbalism work through readjustment of energies and metabolism, certainly not antipathic treatments. Which leaves us with some specific circumstances (bar needed surgery) where an antipathic drug might be needed.
A typical example is the sudden crisis of very high blood pressure with the threat of stroke or MI, in which case I do not give a damn how it is done, I want that BP down to non threatening levels.
Therefore I think we can conclude that semantic exploration of the term homeopathy by saying that although those techniques do not fit the strict definition of homeopathy as H established it, it cannot be said or argued that homeopaths should not master some of them and be familiar with others, and use them when indicated during their consultation and treatment, even if they call themselves strictly pure homeopaths.
To return to the Organon, it is not by chance that the first aphorism tells us about our duty to cure the patient, and it is not by chance that H never found it necessary to add that the cure should be provided by the means of homeopathy alone, as he could definitely have been entitled to write.
And so, IMO again, I think it is fair that on a list devoted to "Classical" homeopathy, other techniques can be discussed as synergistic methods.
Joe.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, .