Methods of prescription
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2002 1:18 pm
>in defining your position on classical homeopathy, where >do u stand on the issue of the modern-day interpretation of >Kent - constiutional prescribing - versus those like Andre >Saine who argue this is a serious misunderstanding of of >the Organon
Andrew
Hello Andrew, Soroush, H. Balasubramanian and all,
Thanks to H. Balasubramanian for his excellent piece.
I agree with Soroush that we must prescribe on the presenting symptoms.
We treat the patient as a whole, that makes our description a 'constitutional prescription'. (not local).
This is not alway a remedy which also covers the patient 'characteristics', (the constitutional type), thus not always his 'constitutional remedy' (very confusing termilogy).
Kent differs in this not from Hahnemann.
Hahnemann drew attention to the importance of the mental and emotional state of the patient for the selection of the curative remedy (par 210-213). Kent explored this area of homoeopathy in depth.
Hahnemann and Von Boenninghausen placed the mental and emotional symptoms after the others to check their prescription.
Kent placed them in front, but also used the other physical generals and peculiars. So there is no real contradiction between Kent and Hahnemann.
They both prescribed according Par 5, 6, 153, 210-213.
Every real curative presciption is based on this, whether you call it a constitutional, miasmatic, keynote, intercurrent, organopathic, specific prescription etc. or not. Its always a matter of Similia Similbus Currentur!
We must always prescribe on de Central disturbance of the vital force.
The confusion came later, some thought that Kent meant by treating the 'whole person', 'the making of a man': prescribing on the characteristics of the person.
This is a big mistake, we must treat the symptoms!
Yes, a lot today's homeopaths prescribe on the basis of the patient's CHARACTERISTICS which have no relation to his complaints at all, and that are confused with the patient's SYMPTOMS. But this has nothing to do with Kent's teachings!
A.Saine is right, this is a serious misunderstanding of the Organon (and of Kent's teachings).
kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew
Hello Andrew, Soroush, H. Balasubramanian and all,
Thanks to H. Balasubramanian for his excellent piece.
I agree with Soroush that we must prescribe on the presenting symptoms.
We treat the patient as a whole, that makes our description a 'constitutional prescription'. (not local).
This is not alway a remedy which also covers the patient 'characteristics', (the constitutional type), thus not always his 'constitutional remedy' (very confusing termilogy).
Kent differs in this not from Hahnemann.
Hahnemann drew attention to the importance of the mental and emotional state of the patient for the selection of the curative remedy (par 210-213). Kent explored this area of homoeopathy in depth.
Hahnemann and Von Boenninghausen placed the mental and emotional symptoms after the others to check their prescription.
Kent placed them in front, but also used the other physical generals and peculiars. So there is no real contradiction between Kent and Hahnemann.
They both prescribed according Par 5, 6, 153, 210-213.
Every real curative presciption is based on this, whether you call it a constitutional, miasmatic, keynote, intercurrent, organopathic, specific prescription etc. or not. Its always a matter of Similia Similbus Currentur!
We must always prescribe on de Central disturbance of the vital force.
The confusion came later, some thought that Kent meant by treating the 'whole person', 'the making of a man': prescribing on the characteristics of the person.
This is a big mistake, we must treat the symptoms!
Yes, a lot today's homeopaths prescribe on the basis of the patient's CHARACTERISTICS which have no relation to his complaints at all, and that are confused with the patient's SYMPTOMS. But this has nothing to do with Kent's teachings!
A.Saine is right, this is a serious misunderstanding of the Organon (and of Kent's teachings).
kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]