Minutus

Dear Luise

From my understanding of what you have written I am concerned that you seem
have confused the treatment of epidemic (an acute disease suffered by a
large section of the population almost all at the same time) diseases with
the treatment of chronic diseases.

In terms of treatment of epidemic diseases, each patient in an epidemic (let
us say that the epidemic has just struck and you are facing the first few
patients) will give you symptom common to that disease and also each will
contribute in a jig-saw fashion pieces of information for a whole picture to
be built. On the basis of this information a few remedies will be
short-listed

In terms of treatment, you will find that they will obviously have a degree
of commonly shared symptoms, but each will have symptoms that are individual
to each patient. On that basis from the short-listed remedies the most
suitable is quickly selected.

This is certainly not the case with chronic diseases. Irrespective of what
the disease or syndrome may be called, we cannot treat the disease by its
name. If we could what do you suggest for cases of asthma, or rheumatism or
arthritis etc.

It must be recognised that it is the 'patient in disease' that we treat and
not the 'disease in patient'.

I certainly regard Herring and Phatak in high esteem as homoeopath, but
please bring one writing from them that shows that purely because their
patient was old they used such-and-such a remedy. You will find that they
individualised around the significant symptoms of each patient. After all
when our allopathic colleagues on seeing an asthmatic patient reach
immediately to prescribe some kind of an inhaler, we individualise in trying
to find out how the patient's breathing is effected along with other
functions. It then often turns out that a peculiarity of some other symptom
will guide us to the remedy which will also cure the asthma.

In terms of studying Materia Medica, please be careful whose you read as I
am afraid there a some cases where the teaching does cause remedy prejudices
to be formed.

For example if I said that a patient is Affectionate, mild, benevolent,
cheerful, sympathetic, timid and yielding - which remedies would come to
mind? The average homoeopath would not think of Nux-v, purely because the
way s/he has been taught!

Re 153: This is exactly what I had in mind. It is only by individualising
around the patient through thorough questioning of the patient and if
necessary his friends and family and importantly OBSERVATION that you can
find out what the required remedy is and NOT by some body else's definition
of a particular syndrome and CERTAINLY not by the common symptoms.

I note that you yourself have not offered a meaning for Senile Psychosis!!!
)

For my own curiosity, please advise where you are based and where you learnt
about homoeopathy.

I hope 2002 brings you success.

Soroush Ebrahimi

[At the request of some colleagues I have cut the previous exchanges - I
hope dear readers you can follow from where we left off]

Dear Luise

Let us imagine that a patient visits and complains about Asthma.

Considering the mental/emotional/physical aspects of that patient I believe
it would be a rare thing that the only thing that is wrong with him is his
lung function.

So what is his disease?
Is it Asthma?

Or is it a lot of other things that are wrong with him, but it is his asthma
that has brought him to see you - presenting symptoms!

It is the whole lot of these other symptoms including his asthma or whatever
the presenting symptoms may be that need treating and not just the asthma.

The allopaths would say that he has asthma (man in disease) the homoeopath
will agree that he has asthma (although potentially life threatening and
needs to be treated acutely if the patient in front of you is having a
severe asthma attack and chronically if he is not suffering from it but not
while he is sitting in front of you) but say that it is the total of these
symptoms (disease in man) that needs to be resolved.

Perhaps it is that allopaths have not really understood the difference
between an acute and chronic dis-ease in treatment terms and as they have no
concept of miasmatic influences, they are lost in any case.

Regards
Soroush

Dear Luise

It is either my fault for not expressing my views fully (although no one
else has commented) or you have an excellent knack of misunderstanding what
I mean.

Lets us get to the case of senile psychosis.

What I am trying to convey is that apart from symptoms that may be
associated with Senile Psychosis (what ever it is and whatever those
symptoms may be) the patient will have other symptoms - these symptoms will
for the totality of the case and it is that totality that needs to be
treated. There must be symptoms that differentiate between this and any
other patient that suffers from senile psychosis or any other disease. I
used asthma because at least the greater number of people who may read these
posts are familiar with it - where as there has been little to actually and
accurately define what may be meant by senile psychosis.

In my view, if a homoeopath zooms on just a particular set of symptoms which
has brought the patient to the consulting room, then there is a strong
likelihood that the case will be suppressed.

So homoeopathy will attempt to address the whole issues presented and by the
grace of the greater force that surpasses all understanding if one
prescribes the similimum for the patient, then the patient is better on ALL
fronts.

I think I have expressed my view sufficient strongly that it is wrong to
treat particulars as I would regard treating symptoms associated with senile
psychosis (or whatever) to be exactly that.

Any further repetition of these issues, I think would be a waste of
resources noting especially that very few of our colleagues have joined in
this discussion.
Rgds
Soroush

soroush said..

yes this is precisely the problem. I'll try again with my question: where
do you stand on the controvery between Andre Saine and the neo-Kentians? As
Piet said, there is no contradiction between a properly understood Kent and
Hahnemann. Do you subscribe to the neo-Kentians like Coulter, or do you
follow Andre Saine's position?

Andrew