Minutus

Hello Shannon,

Wednesday, August 1, 2007, 7:47:30 AM, you wrote:

RSN> Well, perhaps that's the problem, that the situation is that different
RSN> here.
RSN>

Surely some in your country still confirm and mainly practice by the
centuries old definition of homeopathy? Are your views representative
of the majority of US practitioners or at odds with them?

RSN> But in your part of the world aren't there combos stocked on drug store
RSN> and health food store shelves, labeled "homeopathic"?

Some, but by manufacturers who are not homeopaths and/or are only
interested in the money - so, what does this change? The public buys
them because they think they are homeopathy not because they know they
are not and are demanding they be accepted as homeopathy as some on
this list are doing.

Obviously, public education is required. People can and do understand
the difference between remedies prescribed homeopathically and
potentised substance prescribed allopathically when it is explained to
them. And if they understand homeopathy, they definitely want the
former.

Here, in Australia, we are seeing potentised allopathic medicines and
substances being sold OTC - things intended to act allopathically like
their chemical counterpart but in potentised form because they make
more money for the manufacturer (cheaper to produce), are cheaper for
the consumer, and like homeopathic medicines do not have toxic
chemical effects. I guess the same is probably happening in the States
and this situation will only increase in the future.

Is this what you want to see homeopathy equated to? You have sat on
these lists for years and have had the opportunity to absorb some
splendid teaching - what has happened that you no longer seem to think
from a homeopathic perspective and are prepared to accept and
encourage almost anything in order to be inclusive?

RSN> And would you agree with the conclusion that (if I followed right) John
RSN> and Luise seem to have come to, that by "his" definition von
RSN> Boenninghausen was not a homeopath?

No, if Luise is correct, all it indicates is that Boenninghausen did not
act homeopathically at times and in these instances his case management
left a lot to be desired. I do not have the source material and have
not had time to investigate it so cannot comment more than this.

RSN> On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Fran Sheffield wrote:
--
Best regards,
Fran mailto:FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

Hello Shannon,

Wednesday, August 1, 2007, 7:50:50 AM, you wrote:

RSN> One other thought--nearly 20 years ago, when I was first referred to
RSN> homeopathy, it was with instructions to "find a 'Classical'
RSN> homeopath--be sure they practice classically." Would this not happen
RSN> where you are--is everyone who calls him/herself a homeopath practicing
RSN> by the classical (if not Hahnemannian) method? If so, that is *very*
RSN> different from here!
RSN> Shannon

I can only speak for my part of Australia but the term "classical
homeopath" is not used so often now. In the past, about 20 years ago
when I first became aware of homeopathy, it was in common use because
standards were all over the place and people would use this term to
indicate they were serious homeopaths rather than eclectics and
allopaths. Since uniform standards have been in place the term is less
commonly used. Does that mean that standards are observed by all?
Sadly no for we still have our eclectics and allopaths but there is
no dispute about the definition of homeopathy.

Fran Sheffield

Homeopathy Plus! (Education and Information)
www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative Inc. (Homeopathic Immunisation)
www.d-n-h.org

Hi Fran,
(Sorry for my delay, I was away for a few days.)
Sure. I don't know what the percentages would be. I *think* that most
of the practicing (people who call *themselves*) "homeopaths" are
either classical or something at least in the ballpark, but there are
also a goodly (and I think also growing) number who call themselves
homeopaths, but--as in the case of the one at the naturapathic clinic
nearby--practice various sorts of polypharmacy via computer analysis,
or in some cases dowsing or etc.
Which of my views are you asking about?
If you mean specifically my view that "definition" is determined by
current usage rather than keeping the original one intact indefinitely,
I guess I would say that most people don't think much about it at all.
But writers of dictionaries definitely *do* determine "definition" by
current usage rather than by history. Do you disagree with that? The
dictionaries are so full-to-bursting with words whose definition has
changed over time...

(skip down a bit for my next remark)

No, of course not.
That is why I favor encouraging terms such as "classical" or
"Hahnemannian". By identifying what *we* mean by "homeopathy", we give
people who are new to the issue a chance to understand that (a) not
everyone uses the word "homeopathy" to mean the same thing, and (b)
that this is the "original" one (more or less), which we believe to be
the best.

Similarly I would like to see others who call themselves a "homeopath"
but practice in some other way, to distinguish what *they* are
practicing. As far as e.g. this guy at the naturapath's clinic, sure I
can *say* "you're not a homeopath", but the school he went to said they
were teaching him homeopathy; the medicines he dispenses say
"homeopathic" on them (and of course would *be* perfectly homeopathic
to certain cases). His business cards say "homeopath". I can't force
him to change any of that. Since (at least in the US) there is no
legal definition, and I really can't imagine how one will ever be
developed--can you?--the workable "way out" to me, seems to be adding
qualifiers, e.g. "classical". Perhaps it's not necessary where you
are. Well, it's obviously not *necessary* here either, but the
situation is pretty murky... Except when people *do* specify the "type
of homeopathy" (yeah I know, "there's only one type of homeopathy..."
) )
What makes you say I am "accepting and encouraging"? On the contrary,
I am wishing to find a better way to publicize, and research, and talk
about, what WE are doing (classical), rather than letting the whole
weird range of uses of "potentized substances" be all lumped together.

It does us no service at all when, e.g., a study is done giving Remedy
X to everyone with Condition Q, and when the results are ho-hum,
letting it be said that "this study shows that homeopathy is not useful
for Condition Q." According to the researchers and the publisher, that
was a "homeopathic study", because potentized substance was used. Yet
it has nothing to do with any reasonable sort of practice, so...

Shannon