Minutus

Hi Rik,

I feel we have ruined a generation of homeopaths with these approaches. That is certainly what I see. Student's are graduating with Sankaran or Scholten approaches being taught in their final years and thinking that if they do not use them as the mainstay of their practice, then they are a crap homeopath.

It is difficult enough as it is to establish a practice in the early years without being handicapped by systems that are difficult to use and very unreliable. All-in-all it has been a disaster.

I agree with what you say about postgraduate education - if these approaches are to be taught at all they should be at a post-graduate level and then only to those who have spent 3 - 5 years in real practice.

As you say, I also think these approaches will 'sink or swim' in one generation and I am putting my money on them sinking. They are not according to 'clearly defined principles' (aph.3) and so are too hard to transfer to a new generation of homeoapths. In the meantime, what tragedy for new graduates.

And a lot of damage is being done. New graduates are failing in practice, some very sick people are not consistently getting what homeopathy can offer them at a time of need, and homeopathy is gaining such a 'woo-woo' name that its reputation will take a long time to recover among those who a looking for a system of medicine that can reliably manage serious problems.

Our courses have never been longer but I find it increasingly difficult to refer to newly emerging homeopaths because there are so few who seem to able to do basic homeopathy - and once these basics are mastered the vast majority of cases can be managed very well.

The value of what a speaker teaches can usually be determined by finding out HOW they manage their cases as much (or more) than by what they prescribe. I do not wish to speak disparagingly of either Sankaran or Scholten as I do not know either of them personally - and I am sure that if I had to share a meal with them that I would find them both to be fantastic company - but I have attended a few of their seminars to see what was going on.

It was clear on asking a few questions about case management that both men only had a cursory appreciation of the Organon and that both of their systems had been developed in an attempt to overcome problems that Hahnemann had also come across but had already dealt with far more simply in the Organon. It seemed to me that the wheel was being reinvented but that it was no longer round. So when it is said that both men encourage that the basics be fully mastered first, I doubt that they have been able to fully do this themselves.

What was of greater concern though was that most seminar participants were so enamoured with the approaches that they either could not, or didn't want to, recoginise this. As a profession we really do need a higher degree of critical thinking and peer review - by peers who can also think critically.

A friend spoke to Sankaran following one of his seminars and upon asking what his success rate was with this new system, was told that it was below 15% - this is not encouraging!

--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Richard Nash- Shannon wrote:

Hello Fran,
We share much of the same complaints. The generation going through school right now will leave with absolutely no way to manage even basic acute cases. They are energized by new and sexy with no frame of reference in which to build on. The rate of burn-out/dropout in Homeopathic practice is 50% in 2 yrs already!!! Now throw in unproven rxs and no basics, what then?
What is really missing is the double-edged sword of certification in basic and higher education, to include the schools and what curriculum should be handled in those first years.
I speak weekly with students, administrators and directors/teachers weekly about all things Homeopathic and am continuously fighting off the overwhelming feelings of disparagement and on occasion contempt for what is so very important to us all.
Why just the other day was told of a child on 50M Lac leoninum..... and go figure they were trying to manage the case as it was running into some problems. Go figure......
Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:

Does anyone here know whether the CHC (writes the US basic homeopathic
certification test, to which (as of last I heard) the more serious
schools were gearing their curriculum) has made any changes to its
test? Because that test--again, as of last I heard, which has been a
few years)--does cover basic materia medica, case analysis and
management, and Organon. I don't know how one could cut down on the
time devoted to "basics" and still manage the test...??

Hello Shannon,
The test in some ways has been "dumbed" down so less people fail. Too many people were not passing so they seriously gutted the case analysis part and cut the number of cases needed for final submission.
I also think that their Philosophy/Mgt sections could use a lot of work. The test includes Kents philosophy intermingling with questions based on the 6th ed. Organon which intermingles with Vithoulkas case mgt. The repertory and MM parts are spot on.
Confusing yes, helpful not really.
Regarding schools though, as I have said before if the community continues to move away from anything even semi related to Classical Homeopathy then you will see either the CHC changing it's test or simply vanishing.
So thats my 2 cents anyways.

Best regards, Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

Then I understand your concern and dismay.
How is it that you're so informed and current about all of this?

i did a prep course last august for the chc and it had not really
changed then. they were considering some changes that would
facillitate the case writing part of the test, but the test would
remain basically the same in terms of what it covered and expected.

tanya

From what I see in Australia, basics are covered in the early years and speculative approaches in the latter years where it is a little like a magician conjuring up amazing remedies. And being the most recent thing taught, this is what students have their heads full of on graduating.

Even though polycrests are probably well taught in most colleges, it is only when they are used again and again in practice, and under ones own efforts, that a true understanding and recognition of them is developed.

If this vital stage of practitioner development - that should happen in the early years of practice - is lost because the new graduate is grappling with difficult to manage speculative approaches, then the practitioner is lost.

Polycrests are called polycrests for good reason - they have always treated a large number of symptoms in a large number of people and they always will. If a new practitioner does not develop mastery with them before exploring new areas, they have no chance of survival as a homeopath. It is usually at this point that the student, who more than anything wanted to become a homeopath, develops an eclectic practice just to get something working somewhere so they have a chance of survival - and then they are lost to homeopathy proper.
Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com

Same as how long ago, if you know? (I took it about 12 years ago, and
have not seen an actual copy since.)

That does sound like a problem. I guess I'm just behind. When
i went thru, altho there were seminars, and all of the students eagerly
went to as many as we could, we were discouraged from going to any
until the third (last) year (tho I'm sure most started going in the 2d
at least ), and none of those methods were being *taught*, or
discussed more than casually by the teachers. Some students kept
asking and our main teacher kept repeating she felt we should
feel *solid* in one approach (the good ol' repping, mat.med, and
classical-ish analysis), and could later start branching out. I think
it was excellent advice. (Hah, not that I felt *solid* by the end of
my 3 years--but how much less so if we'd been learning multiple
approaches all at once!) Interesting.

can't say that. i was told that they are always modifying the
exam questions so it probably has changed

tanya