Minutus

hello Nancy
I hope you don't mind my butting in on just this bit of your discussion.
I think luise does have a point here. it is all very well being able to refer to the medical profession for tests/diagnoses etc (and to a great extent you can do that here in the UK) but you do need the knowledge yourself to know when to refer particularly if patients are coming to you as a 'primary carer'. We also owe it to our patients to have some idea of what their options are and what the varying prognoses are with different therapies and we need to know how to work intelligently with progressive pathology. It is this perceived lack of knowledge ( far from universal, I am sure!) that scares the law makers and some members of the public.
I have missed two or three quite serious diagnoses in the past - fortunately for me, if not the patient, their GP had also missed them and fortunately for the patient I do encourage people to keep in touch with GPs until they get a good allopathic diagnosis.My own basic allopathic type diagnostic skills have been of considerable use over the years to me and my patients - but I didn't learn them in college or have them at the start of my career. I do know of homeopaths, many beginners, who make quite a thing of discouraging patients from going to the GP over what they might see as an irritating but stubborn symptom, which is often, I now know, how serious problems first manifest.
Others get round the problem, it appears from a recent posting here, by recommending allopathic treatment for physical ailments while concentrating on 'higher things'. This may be a way round but we are really selling the potential of homeopathy short by doing that. It is, however, what happens when practitioners are scared themselves of pathology. The early homeopaths, many of whom were medics, were confident ,prepared to take on anything, and did so successfully. Personally I think we need more basic medical training if we are to play in the main game and the only way we can do that is to have longer, full time courses. (We cannot, as you say, afford to know less homeopathy.) As our training is generally self funded this isn't actually very easy. I believe they may have something approaching this in India.........not sure.
BW
Theresa
Nancy wrote:
While it is nice to have some training in anatomy and physiology, and pathophysiology--and maybe even some extra in biochemistry to give us some familiarity with "the medical sciences", we're restricted, legally, from communicating a diagnosis or requisitioning tests, and even, in many places, from conducting limited physical exams. In Canada, we have a single payer health care system which everyone funds via taxes: homeopathic physicians should be able to direct their patients to go to their MDs and have their MDs do what they are richly paid to do--examine, test, and diagnose our patients so that "extra" information gives us a bit more to go on. There is NO REASON for homeopaths to do what others are already quite well paid to do. Nor is there any reason for us to adopt and practice the biochemical model of medical philosophy. It would be far more useful for us to know about the full harmful effects of pharmaceutical drugs and how to decipher test results. And all that information is very, very nice; however, if you can't understand how to apply the law of similars or take a full case or gauge the reaction to a remedy--don't bother doing homeopathy. *********************

Theresa, you make an excellent point about the usefulness of medical diagnostic knowledge and awareness for a homeopathic practitioner. Our pre-certification requirements gave a nod to that need -- the requirements for courses in Anatomy and Physiology, Pathology, etc... However, there was no required course in medical diagnosis, which, of course, should follow from Anatomy and Physiology -- nor was such a course available for non-medical students.
It would be useful to see a course in this subject offered by an on-line education provider (PHAU -- are you there?). Such a course by a master physician who's also a master homeopath, like Farokh Master or Luc de Shepper or our own Dr. Roz, targeting especially practicing homeopaths as postgraduate education would be most useful. I have found in practice that the sharper my knowledge becomes of the possible physiological processes, their causes and prognoses, the better I can apply homeopathic knowledge accurately in choosing a remedy.
Rosemary

Theresa Partington wrote:


This is important but debatable.
For example in my own homeopathy practise, I concentrate mainly on the
kinds of cases where the medical profession just throws steroids at it
till the animal dies of steroid damage - because either they don't know
what's wrong - or (more often) they do know to some extent what's not
working - but as it is a chronic syndrome they have no answers for it.
(Suppression is not an answer.)

My point is that it is not that hard to have blood tests and lab tests
as a standard aspect of my questionnaire to all clients with chronic
case issues. What the homeopath needs to be able to do is to interpret
those lab tests well enough to use them towards selecting a homeopathic
remedy that is a true fit to the case- including its pathology.
So I'd agree there is some knowledge essential in this area - but it
is not as vast as allopaths need.
One does need to understand pathology of disease - but this is not
something to learn in medical school. Indeed in almost every case where
I need to know the pathology of disease - my personal success rate is
good specifically because I use the most recent research (on PubMed etc)
and NOT what the client's vet/doctor is using - which is invariably out
of date information from when they went to medical school - or worse,
something passed around the medical grapevine.

The internet and it's access to information - has revolutionized
education - or rather it SHOULD revolutionize it. It has revolutionized
what is POSSIBLE readily from any home computer.
It is far more important to know HOW to read and interpret research -
and to make the effort to do so on any complex case - than to study rote
ideas of specific pathologies in some school.
Here is where the homeopathy profession can take a quantum leap AHEAD
of the allopathic outdated school approach. Homeopaths can (and should
IMO) be taught how to read research papers to interpret them properly,
know what is good or false, and to use the infromation they glean in so
doing for their client'ss benefit - whether it is to suggest they ask
their doctor to "test for such and such" - or whether it leads to
suggestions of nutrients being depleted by the illness or whether it
leads to knowledge of symptoms otr\r organ damage that can be included
in repertorizing.
This is far BETTER as an approach than the one of suggesting that
homeopaths attend the equivalent of medical school.

I have done both so am in a good position to compare:
I attended medical school for several years (did not complete an MD but
did enough to see what was missing in the training).
What gets me good results as a homeopath is NOT that training (though it
taught me a lot of terminology that comes in handy) but my training at
Rhodes University in Zoology under Prof Allanson - who had a bee in his
bonnet about the need for ANY scientist (and homeopaths ARE scientists)
to be able to read and correctly interpret research. In first year
university he drummed this into all 400 of us at the time and I am
forever grateful - as this ability alone has led me to success in many
different professions. It did not matter that he was Zoo prof - it
mattered that after that we could read ANY research on ANY subject and
know whether it was good or bogus, and what to take away from it.

Add that ability to the ready availability of the most recent research
on the internet - and you have a powerful ability to help clients.... a
way better one than can be gotten at any medical school teaching from
necessarily outdated textbooks - or worse from the experience of medical
professionals whose own med school was ages ago.

The need for CURRENT knowledge about pathology, tests, etc, is paramount
in this world where the latest drugs and allopathic techniques tend to
be at the root of the chronic cases we get to handle (along with
emotional causes).

So I feel that homeopaths DO need training other than pure homeopathy -
but that it is NOT the training offered in medical school. It is far
more specific than that - as above for an example of the pathology aspects.

>

That is debatable:
For example my current primary care person is an ARNP (Advanced
registered nurse practitioner, as opposed to a doctor - and the ARNP
writes prescriptions etc) but the ARNP does NOT know all my options.
Instead, he/she sends me to other specialists on a referral basis to
find out what my options are - reports come back to the ARNP to discuss
with me.
I believe homeopaths should do likewise. There is no point in homeopaths
trying to be all things to all people - we DO need to rely on other
professionals who are expert in other areas. It's knowing how to
co-ordinate this that matters - not knowing the detail of the other areas.
This is already built into most USA state laws on alternative health
practise. For example the physiotherapy law in WA state requires that
the physiotherapist "refer the patient to appropriate medical
professionals when needed". Homeopaths need the same - they need not be
proficient in the area of other professionals.

>

EVERY school of homeopathy should drum into the students that this is
wrong and drum into them what to do instead. It's certainly that way in
the courses I tutor.

>

That's not homeopathy. Homeopaths see the whole picture. And first aid
is in any case easier and safer by homeopathy - and a sensible school
will teach it first!

>

I disagree.
People learn things best at the rate which suits them - and not at some
rate that suits a school. The one on one training I have with my
students with distance learning - enables each to go at their individual
pace, and me to concentrate more where each student needs more detailed
assistance and less where they already have it - perhaps form a prior
course or experience. It is the ultimate way to customize and
individualize training of a student up to an acceptable standard.
I have had students who fly through some concepts - others who need a
lot of individual attention to grasp them - each with strengths in
different areas - both kinds will make good homeopaths by end of training.
"Full time" is no measure of quality - the actual level of
proficiency required is what needs to be met - it can not be measured by
words like "full time" or "x years". We need to measure what they can do
- and certify that they can do it - not how long they spent supposedly
learning it. Give me a homeopath who knows their stuff - regardless how
they came by the knowledge.

NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

It is worse than that!!!! We must be ready to take over.........yesterday I saw a 40 years old lady with uterine bleeding for TWELVE months........she went to her GP who gave her 2 weeks of Provera; NO physical examination, NO ultrasound, NO referral to OB-GYN.
I am soooooooo pissed!!!!!!!!! That is not the way we were trained 30 years ago in medical school.
And this is happening all the time!
Even though I am not registered to practice conventional medicine over here, that is what I do most of the time; it is fine with me, I like doing that and treating homeopathically but then what is the role of the GP apart of being a pencil pusher and bureaucrat?
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH..............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Gosh that is a lot worse than some of the stuff I've seen!! I look on my job to send the patient back to the GP and insist on a 2nd opinion for a referral to a consultant which you are allowed ask for and it shouldn't be refused. Often the answer is - "Well let's see what I can do first" and it needs a strong patient to insist on their rights!!! Even to go privately you need a referral for the GP in UK.
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Hi Irene,

I didn’t, of course, say that all homeopaths should have a full conventional medical training first. However, it is obvious from your email that you have a strong scientific background and understanding of pathological process etc. You must be aware of how far short of that is the knowledge of the average homeopathic graduate – are you saying that the existing standards are nevertheless adequate? Again, you seem to have spent years reaching the point you are at, do you think that any reasonably intelligent person can achieve the same in a dozen weekend courses a year for four years? I know we all take further education seriously and most get there in the end but it is surely in the public interest that new graduates are competent from the word ‘go.’

And Joe – you are another highly qualified chap, it appears. Forget about the inadequacies of your local GPs (if you can!), but do you think new graduates in NZ are adequately trained for practice in this regard? Maybe they are. I’d be interested in your views.
Theresa

Irene wrote:
Theresa Partington wrote:


This is important but debatable.
For example in my own homeopathy practise, I concentrate mainly on the
kinds of cases where the medical profession just throws steroids at it
till the animal dies of steroid damage - because either they don't know
what's wrong - or (more often) they do know to some extent what's not
working - but as it is a chronic syndrome they have no answers for it.
(Suppression is not an answer.)

My point is that it is not that hard to have blood tests and lab tests
as a standard aspect of my questionnaire to all clients with chronic
case issues. What the homeopath needs to be able to do is to interpret
those lab tests well enough to use them towards selecting a homeopathic
remedy that is a true fit to the case- including its pathology.
So I'd agree there is some knowledge essential in this area - but it
is not as vast as allopaths need.
One does need to understand pathology of disease - but this is not
something to learn in medical school. Indeed in almost every case where
I need to know the pathology of disease - my personal success rate is
good specifically because I use the most recent research (on PubMed etc)
and NOT what the client's vet/doctor is using - which is invariably out
of date information from when they went to medical school - or worse,
something passed around the medical grapevine.

The internet and it's access to information - has revolutionized
education - or rather it SHOULD revolutionize it. It has revolutionized
what is POSSIBLE readily from any home computer.
It is far more important to know HOW to read and interpret research -
and to make the effort to do so on any complex case - than to study rote
ideas of specific pathologies in some school.
Here is where the homeopathy profession can take a quantum leap AHEAD
of the allopathic outdated school approach. Homeopaths can (and should
IMO) be taught how to read research papers to interpret them properly,
know what is good or false, and to use the infromation they glean in so
doing for their client'ss benefit - whether it is to suggest they ask
their doctor to "test for such and such" - or whether it leads to
suggestions of nutrients being depleted by the illness or whether it
leads to knowledge of symptoms otr\r organ damage that can be included
in repertorizing.
This is far BETTER as an approach than the one of suggesting that
homeopaths attend the equivalent of medical school.

I have done both so am in a good position to compare:
I attended medical school for several years (did not complete an MD but
did enough to see what was missing in the training).
What gets me good results as a homeopath is NOT that training (though it
taught me a lot of terminology that comes in handy) but my training at
Rhodes University in Zoology under Prof Allanson - who had a bee in his
bonnet about the need for ANY scientist (and homeopaths ARE scientists)
to be able to read and correctly interpret research. In first year
university he drummed this into all 400 of us at the time and I am
forever grateful - as this ability alone has led me to success in many
different professions. It did not matter that he was Zoo prof - it
mattered that after that we could read ANY research on ANY subject and
know whether it was good or bogus, and what to take away from it.

Add that ability to the ready availability of the most recent research
on the internet - and you have a powerful ability to help clients.... a
way better one than can be gotten at any medical school teaching from
necessarily outdated textbooks - or worse from the experience of medical
professionals whose own med school was ages ago.

The need for CURRENT knowledge about pathology, tests, etc, is paramount
in this world where the latest drugs and allopathic techniques tend to
be at the root of the chronic cases we get to handle (along with
emotional causes).

So I feel that homeopaths DO need training other than pure homeopathy -
but that it is NOT the training offered in medical school. It is far
more specific than that - as above for an example of the pathology aspects.

>

That is debatable:
For example my current primary care person is an ARNP (Advanced
registered nurse practitioner, as opposed to a doctor - and the ARNP
writes prescriptions etc) but the ARNP does NOT know all my options.
Instead, he/she sends me to other specialists on a referral basis to
find out what my options are - reports come back to the ARNP to discuss
with me.
I believe homeopaths should do likewise. There is no point in homeopaths
trying to be all things to all people - we DO need to rely on other
professionals who are expert in other areas. It's knowing how to
co-ordinate this that matters - not knowing the detail of the other areas.
This is already built into most USA state laws on alternative health
practise. For example the physiotherapy law in WA state requires that
the physiotherapist "refer the patient to appropriate medical
professionals when needed". Homeopaths need the same - they need not be
proficient in the area of other professionals.

>

EVERY school of homeopathy should drum into the students that this is
wrong and drum into them what to do instead. It's certainly that way in
the courses I tutor.

>

That's not homeopathy. Homeopaths see the whole picture. And first aid
is in any case easier and safer by homeopathy - and a sensible school
will teach it first!

>

I disagree.
People learn things best at the rate which suits them - and not at some
rate that suits a school. The one on one training I have with my
students with distance learning - enables each to go at their individual
pace, and me to concentrate more where each student needs more detailed
assistance and less where they already have it - perhaps form a prior
course or experience. It is the ultimate way to customize and
individualize training of a student up to an acceptable standard.
I have had students who fly through some concepts - others who need a
lot of individual attention to grasp them - each with strengths in
different areas - both kinds will make good homeopaths by end of training.
"Full time" is no measure of quality - the actual level of
proficiency required is what needs to be met - it can not be measured by
words like "full time" or "x years". We need to measure what they can do
- and certify that they can do it - not how long they spent supposedly
learning it. Give me a homeopath who knows their stuff - regardless how
they came by the knowledge.

NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

While I would never disparage the learning of another
person, I was taught that homeopathy did not require
that kind of medical knowledge. And that often it interfered
with really hearing the case.
So my concern, is that the lay people who practice--and many
of them are terrific, do not find themselves under the
gun of a narrow definition of professional practitioner.
In our society today, there is greater and greater emphasis
on demanding more and more credentialing. People are
often dismissed because they lack the alphabet soup after
their name despite the many years of study and learning they
have acquired in a given field.
Just adding my oppositional 2-cents to the discussion
tanya

Well, the 3 colleges in NZ teach anatomy physiology and pathology to the level of registered nurse; what is lacking is the differential diagnosis and the practice of clinical examination, on healthy and sick people.
The ideal situation would be a setting like Bastyr University, where all those subjects are part of the curriculum, no questions asked.
One big problem I see locally is apathy and inertia. A full course of clinical diagnostics was organised by the herbalists and the homeopaths were invited to attend..........never got the requested minimal participation, so it was cancelled. I have repeatedly offered to teach this either through the Council of Homeopaths or through the different colleges, I always got no further than a thank you and polite interest...........at some stage I decided I would not push the issue any more, you cannot force feed people.........unfortunately I have come to believe that the only way this teaching would be organised locally will be when a practitioner will be sued for incompetence and malpractice because he/she did not recognise some pathology.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

I must respectfully disagree.
Look at the patient I described; there is no way right now to tell what causes the bleeding: hormonal imbalance, fibroid, polyp, cancer, ovarian tumour, endothelial hypertrophy,.....anyone of those would need a different approach, wouldn't it? Even if the remedy I gave her in the meantime stops the bleeding, did I cure the patient??? No idea...it might just stop the bleeding of an uterine cancer, how should I know........had the same type of experience with bladder bleeding stopped by an acupuncturist very efficiently, only to come back with a generalised bladder cancer (that was when I was still a surgeon....).
As for the practice without medical knowledge, you then throw away almost all the content of the repertories except for Mind and Generalities....
Read Kent, Mathur, Koppikar, Jahr, Farrington, Burnett and other oldies.
Indeed you can find good remedies based only on the symptoms given by the patients, but let me tell you another story: when I was teaching at the faculty of chiropractic and homeopathy in Durban; and elderly gentleman came with low back pain; after looking at his spinal X Rays, the chiros manipulated him; he died the same night. Why? Because his pain was not caused by his spine, despite the pathology shown on the X Rays, but by a fissurating aortic aneurysm that was missed completely.
The point is, when you do not know what to look for, you will not find it. That is why it is called DIFFERENTIAL diagnosis = what are the different pathologies that could give the same picture and we homeopaths add what are the different remedies that could give the same picture. For us, the diagnosis is the cure, unless the pathology is such that either we must adjust our remedies to fit the physical pathology or we need a different approach until the patient is out of danger.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Well, the 3 colleges in NZ teach anatomy physiology and pathology to the level of registered nurse; what is lacking is the differential diagnosis and the practice of clinical examination, on healthy and sick people.
The ideal situation would be a setting like Bastyr University, where all those subjects are part of the curriculum, no questions asked.
One big problem I see locally is apathy and inertia. A full course of clinical diagnostics was organised by the herbalists and the homeopaths were invited to attend..........never got the requested minimal participation, so it was cancelled. I have repeatedly offered to teach this either through the Council of Homeopaths or through the different colleges, I always got no further than a thank you and polite interest...........at some stage I decided I would not push the issue any more, you cannot force feed people.........unfortunately I have come to believe that the only way this teaching would be organised locally will be when a practitioner will be sued for incompetence and malpractice because he/she did not recognise some pathology.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".