Practice Guidelines LONG

[muthu kumar]

Except that some of the fringe in his diagram is considered the
"spirit", "soul", "substance" and the "vital" part of homeopathy by
some and practised so....

Is our core from Organon or most of it from Organon or some of it -
how have we defined ourselves in this modern era?
profession
Sure but do we have any criteria? While tolerant of other allopaths
practising some alternative medicine, there have been instances where
allopaths have thrown out people or barred from practising who went
to the real extreme- though I am not saying all of that is good- but
do we have that kind of control? What is a system without guidelines
and controls, which implement guidelines?

Problem is we do not have a criteria to talk even amongst ourselves.

Also we are much more vulnerable than they are- they can ban our
practice - we cannot do anything to theirs... the sooner we realize
this political reality the better it is-
discussion

We should - except that ours is more prone to fancy ideas, conference
creativity and pseudo-science than allopathy ( due to the very nature
of our system or interpretation by practitioners) and so we do not
even know the core anymore.

We do not have what is accepted general practice guidelines and what
is research...anything new becomes instant conference hit and
considered the best way to practice-
Excellent - except that WE will not consider people using dry doses
homeopaths ( not even "Fringers") and would want to consider starting
a new list for "Corers"
pearls and swine?
Neither is all homeopathy 'pearls' nor all detractors and allopaths
'swine'. Considering things in this way is what has brought us down to
such confusion...

There must be a middle ground and we cannot reach that middle ground
by defending "fringe" practices along with our core ( whatever it is
defined as)...

Wherever homeopathy has survived it has been because of some easy or
uneasy co-existence with allopathy- not by competing with it but
collaborating with it ( proper homeopathic way)...

We need to show that we are NOT against allopathy- we still practice
medicine ( as against astrology, palmistry, phrenology etc. and
calling these as part of homeopathic medicine)- still can do
everything an allopath does and so respect their work but the
medicines we give are prescribed based on homeopathic principles and
based on a different pharmacology...and I think Hahnemann was not far
off from doing this.. he wanted homeopathic practitioners to be still
trained in allopathy before becoming homeopathic... we should have
been specialist doctors- instead we became para medics- that is how we
lost respect

and the recent intolerance against homeopathy could be due to

1) Homeopathy losing credibility by becoming fringier in its core and
also not knowing what it is anymore ( becoming more amorphous
internally and externally)- so what could Peter Fisher defend when he
is discussing this with allopaths?

2) Evidence based medical practice changing the way allopathy itself
is practised

3) More checks and balances even in allopathic practice ( due to
insurance / health care companies, malpractice litigation etc.) that
there is a wish to apply the same yardstick to alternative practices

4)Improvement in knowledge sharing ( so that shadier practices all
over including allopathy and homeopathy is known easily and widely)due
to internet etc.

5) probably allopathic doctors earning less and so wanting to find
scapegoats
If we do not respect allopaths and their scientific contribution there
is no way we can expect to get the same from them- and remember we
should start it first - since we are much more vulnerable

Our practice and research and provings need to be based on some of the
medical sciences and not on tridosha, 5 element theory or Law of
signatures or Chakra diagnosis - that is at least trying to reach some
common ground....

similia similibus curentur - where is our similia with allopathy so
that we can solve this problem???