I'm sorry but I disagree, with respect.
Homeopathy is not a rote system where all homeopaths do the same  
things in the same cases - it is the very opposite - it is  
individualized, and in specific cases, something may be emphasized  
that is missing in other cases, and the presentation MUST change  
according to what is relevant. So case presentation, like homeopathy,  
is individualized, according to individual case differences AND  
individual homeopath differences AND individual use of non-homeopathy  
or new techniques to enhance progress..... different homeopaths have  
different approaches which is GOOD not bad - and he list goes on.
he same, due to each homeopath;s individual style.
Excuse me but that is not a reason to do anything. One does not  
change the homeopathy profession to be more like the allopathy one.  
If the allopaths don't like homeopathy principles and  
individualisation because they can't or don't want to even begin to  
think that way -  that's their problem - let's not make it ours.
Ours is to explain what we do - not to change it to look like what  
they do!
When negotiating with what amounts to an adversary in terms of  
acceptance of homeopathy, it does help to start on common ground,  
which is hopefully the desire to cure gently and fully, long-term.  
But after that it is necessary to explain the very different  
principles by which homeopathy does this (and actually achieves it,  
unlike allopathy). SO homeopahty cases need to be written a la  
homeopathy principles - not a la allopathy principles!
It's important to support our science and art in a way that explains  
what it is designed to achieve and how.
Allopathy looks for something entirely different - a disappearance of  
symptoms for up to 5 years by any means possible, including toxic,  
and with no regard to consequential issues that may arise.
That is SO different from a system that helps an individual to regain  
long-term full health without adverse effects.
There's no way two such different systems with two such different  
objectives and two such different methods, can present a case the  
same way!!!
That is a false dream.
Homeopathy needs to be seen for what it is, in a honest and open way  
and without cowering behind the skirts of allopathy.
Sorry but there is no short cut.
What you have to slip to them is the DIFFERENCES that they need to  
understand in order to embrace homeopathy concepts.
To that end, what they need slipped top them is results - like before  
and after photos of cured cases with associated lab reports or  
whatever hard evidence there is.
They need to believe there is something to investigate before they  
will open their minds.
You can not "slip something" into a close mind:-)
So we need to present *homeopathy* case studies but in the light of  
what homeopathy aims to do, and does do, by homeopahty timelines and  
criteria of success.
We do not measure water with a ruler - nor should we measure  
homeopathy with an allopathy stick.
I do agree that homeopathy case studies are the way to present how  
successful homeopathy is.
Maybe there needs to be a forum for it too.
But I would not restrict the style of presentation by individual  
homeopaths.
It may be good to have a list of principles to meet?
Principles might be things like:
* Stating the objective at the start of the case
* Including what symptoms of the individual were matched to which  
rubrics of remedy to get simillimum.
* Management of the case.
* Result with evidence that objectives were met at the close of a case.
No apology needed.
I think cases need to be presented somewhere allopaths have to fall  
over them:-)
But using homeopathy principles not allopathy presentations.
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."