more on constitutional

[Shannon Nelson]

Looking for something else, I was interested by this--Jahr's use of
and views on "constitutional" symptoms. It's from www.simillimum.com
"... The pathognomic symptoms are related to the location, sensations
and modalities of the disease complaint. The constitutional
concomitants are general symptoms that are not part of the disease
pathology but they do reflect the patient's individual state. Jahr
wrote that the origin of many diseases involve an "acquired or
inherited diathesis" making these symptoms so merged with the
"individual constitution" that the patient doesn't even think of
communicating those symptoms because they don't consider them
pathological.

For example, one of our arthritic patients has joint pains with red
swellings and stitching pains < on motion. These are the pathognomic
symptoms of the main complaint. At the same time, they desire open
air, are very thirsty for cold drinks, and like to walk in the
evenings. Is it a pathological condition to desire open air or be
thirsty for cold drinks? No. Do they help us in finding the correct
remedy? YES! These are personalized concomitant symptoms that make one
patient different from the other. Ideally the remedy should have both
the pathognomic symptoms and the constitutional concomitants.
Nevertheless, Jahr opine that in chronic diseases the constitutional
concomitants are often the defining characteristic that point to the
remedy. This is how one treats the patient and their disease.

This method is an excellent way of separating the pathologic symptoms
(many of which are common to the disease) from the symptoms that are
uncommon and unique to the patient. ***Jahr noted that some cases
could be cured on the basis of constitutional concomitants alone even
if the remedy does not match the pathognomic symptoms.*** Kent was not
the first to think that a remedy that has the general symptoms can
cure a particular disease for which it is not yet known. In this way,
we learn more about the possible curative powers of remedies over
specific diseases. This idea comes from Jahr, a close companion and
student of Hahnemann."

So, this does tell where some of the use of the term
"constitutional" (as simply referring to the person's ongoing chronic
state), and also the idea that (between &=*** above) "Jahr noted that
some cases could be cured on the basis of constitutional concomitants
alone even if the remedy does not match the pathognomic symptoms."

That's all for the moment, just thought I would pass this along, for
its interest to recent discussion.

Shannon

[Liz Brynin]

Hi Shannon
That's an interesting quote from Jahr - I can see what he means. Trouble is, sometimes you have to treat a layer - or layers - before you get to the basic personality. So often you hear people saying things like: "Oh I used to love the sun, but I can't take it now. Must be the menopause!"
I find it quite hard to separate out the acquired layers from the 'original person'.
Liz

[Shannon Nelson]

hi Liz,

Notice that he doesn't say *anything* about personality, but instead talks about "constitutional concomitants" giving examples such as " they desire open air" etc., things that we would refer to as the "generals." So again, I *don't* think he is using the term "constitutional" in the sense that Eizayaga did (a fundamental, unchanging, inborn, good-as-it-gets level), but simply in the sense of the broad, ongoing chronic state.
So I guess I understand it as drawing distinction between (a) a remedy for the disease-symptoms, vs. (b) a remedy for the person's *chronic* state, which underlies (and gave rise to) the specific disease. So (c) the genetic constitution would be yet another different state, which (to my understanding) he doesn't address at all.
?
Shannon

[Liz Brynin]

Yes - I think really when I say person/constitution, I mean the basic traits of that person that were there at the beginning, before the disease manifests. And why that's different from the chronic state, I don't know. I think it IS the chronic state many times, don't you?
Confusing, isn't it?
I just try to prescribe on what is presenting. And then what comes up after that etc. etc. Try to keep it simple.
Liz

[Shannon Nelson]

Well... How would you identify "the basic traits of that person that were there ... before the disease manifests" in a person who was not well right from birth? And that's an increasingly common situation!

What Jahr describes *is* prescribing based on what is presenting...
Shannon

[Liz Brynin]

Only if they can tell you how they've changed. Otherwise, you just have to go on, working with what's in front of you. But I think when it comes to modalities, you have to question very, very carefully to see what's new and what isn't. This is really hard - a lot of patients, particularly if they've had the problem a long time, can't tell you what has come with the disease. And if you can't separate out what's new and what was there before, you're not going to get the right remedy.
Liz

[Shannon Nelson]

But you're missing my point! If they have been unwell (even subtly, but esp. if severely) *since birth*, then there IS no information about "before the disease" within their personal history--there *is* no "before the disease" for them.

So then what will you compare with, in order to sort out the prescribing symptoms? (I'm not trying to grill you ... I'm trying to see whether we're in the same frame of reference or not, before trying to explain something further.)

So, e.g. let's say someone who has severe health problems, and has been "non-standard" (by which I mean, has been at least borderline-unwell, and unable to really adapt to life around him) ever since they can remember, and whose health history begins, "born skinny, yellow and screaming." So yes you begin with what's presented to you, but since you have no "before" with which to compare, what *are* you going to use as your "before the disease" standard?

How will you determine the "constitutional remedy" in that case--by either definition?

Shannon

[Lisa Livingston]

There always is the intra-uterine time to check on health. Any unresolved grief, fright, financial issues, abandonment issues, moves, changes in the family, etc., etc., etc., can show us something before birth that can many times be addressed with the remedy of choice.
Just wanted to toss that into the mix.

Lisa

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

One way would be to work backwards if you consider that the "constitution" is the genotype.
We know that a healthy, balanced, centered genotype has a certain picture, presentation, physical, mental and emotional; that same genotype will have a tendency towards a certain type of dis-ease or pathology at any level. Knowing the clinical presentation, we can work out what it should have been in its normal state, but that is assuming that there were no interferences that created the actual situation.
Let me clarify.
I have 2 patients whose main and first remedy was Plumbum Met; one who was in contact with lead since childhood and professionally, and one whose mother was pumping gas as a court attendant during her pregnancy. Both presented clear pictures of Plumbum, by repertorisation as well as through the MM as well as through the toxicological effects of lead.
There was nothing else to see.
The real "constitution" appeared once the Plumbum had the opportunity to remove all the actual symptoms, "what needs to be cured now". Now that is an interference that was clear through the history taking and the repertorisation.
Often it is impossible to really know if there was an interference (intra utero for example), so you just treat what is apparent, without preconception. What good will it do to know the "constitution" of a patient anyway if its representative substance ( I do not use the term remedy as a healthy person does not need a remedy....) is not what he needs now to progress towards cure?
Helping or confusing??????
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[G WILKEN]

Shannon, and others:

I wonder if you might be helped in clarifying this question by the writings of David Little on constitution and temperament. Perhaps Sheri might have this in a postable form. I found it very helpful in understanding these relationships, and thus in choosing the proper remedies - one at a time.

ginny

All stunts performed without a net!
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:36:24 -0600
Subject: Re: [Minutus] more on "constitutional"
hi Liz,

Notice that he doesn't say *anything* about personality, but instead talks about "constitutional concomitants" giving examples such as " they desire open air" etc., things that we would refer to as the "generals." So again, I *don't* think he is using the term "constitutional" in the sense that Eizayaga did (a fundamental, unchanging, inborn, good-as-it-gets level), but simply in the sense of the broad, ongoing chronic state.
So I guess I understand it as drawing distinction between (a) a remedy for the disease-symptoms, vs. (b) a remedy for the person's *chronic* state, which underlies (and gave rise to) the specific disease. So (c) the genetic constitution would be yet another different state, which (to my understanding) he doesn't address at all.
?
Shannon