Minutus

dear minutus community, i am going to raise some issues/questions here that
have long bothered me in homeopathy. two people who i did not want to treat
because of my relationship with them and who i sent to other homeopaths just
had some really bad stuff happen to them around these issues. i wanted to
write and air my opinions and see what others think/feel/do. i have long
thought these are crucially important issues for homeopathy and very big
ethical ones. now two people i know probably trust me less, definitely do
not trust homeopathy, and one will tell her experience far and wide and give
homeopathy a bad name. i am reluctant to send friends and family now to
homeopaths if i don't know what they do in instances like this. the
questions revolve around not telling patients the name of the remedy they
are taking; giving them the wrong name on purpose; giving sac lac. in the
first instance, a woman who was sober and off drugs for many years was given
cannabis indica and told the name of the remedy was indica. it did not help
her and i find it difficult to believe that the homeopath could not have
found a better remedy. clearly, the homeopath did not want the patient to
know what she was taking as i guess she thought the patient would object and
rightfully so. she gave a second remedy and also just gave the second name
of the remedy. in the second case, after treatment with two remedies where
she was told the name of the remedies (i am not sure if they worked because
the patient is so angry now she will not say anything good about homeopathy,
and please do not give me a rubric here!) an elder woman was given sac lac,
with something just pasted over the bottle, so the patient tore off the
pasted on label and took the bottle to a health store and was told it was a
"neutral pellet". i think we are obligated ethically and morally to tell
people the correct name of the remedy they are being given. i understand
that sometimes homeopaths are afraid if the patient knows, they will not
want to take the remedy or will read up about it and not want to take it,
etc. i know the reasons why this is done, at least a lot of the reasons. i
don't think this justifies the practice. as for sac lac, i think that is
inappropriate also.and in this case the homeopath was so lazy or whatever
the word is, the patient found out anyhow. i look forward to your thoughts
and experiences. btw,i understand that often homeopaths treating homeopaths
do not give the name of the remedy to the practitioner. i am not talking
about this. that is a completly different ball game. sheila

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Dear Sheila,

yes, i have participated in several discussions regarding your ethical questions. Personally, I don't agree with lying and it often backfires as it did in your examples. I also find it patronizing and manipulaive to lie. I ususally tell people what the remedy is. Many dont care; they just want it to work. Some people have issues with animal remedies if they are vegetarians, vegans, or simply anti-killing animals. Others just plain have control issues and demand to know, as if that gives them any control. The most difficult people are the types who must know and research the rx themselves and then call to argue the rx. I think if you have a person who may be contrary for some reason, perhaps it is best to say you would rather not prejudice the case by giving them the name. They might develop an attitude that would interfere with rx working. Then you can tell them later if it seems appropriate. One woman said to me she didnt want to know because she found the rx sources too gross sounding.

tanya

Sheila, as is always the case homeopathy is only as good as the
practitioner. If the client wants to know the rx then tell them (with care,
education and knowledge - syphilinum is still difficult to explain),
'fudging' it is necessary sometimes if it is a question of cure or lose the
client, sac lac is an important part of the healing process - in this sense
it is a remedy. The rest is just life and par for the course of being a
homeopath - I don't think there should be strict rules as all individual
cases vary.

Joy Lucas
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Sheila Parks wrote:

"an elder woman was given sac lac, with something just
pasted over the bottle, so the patient tore off the
pasted on label and took the bottle to a health store
and was told it was a "neutral pellet"."

Have I got this right? She was given sac lac, but the
homoeopath pasted another label on top? How does she
know that that particular homoeopath didn't medicate
THAT bottle of sac lac because s/he had run out of
unlabelled sac lac?

Or, did the homoeopath confirm that Sac Lac was the
remedy when she went back and confronted him/her?

BTW, I thought Sac Lac was also a valid remedy, i.e.
isn't ALWAYS used as a pacifier?

Regards,
Simone H

=====
Simone Hogan
www.homeopathyaustralia.com

http://www.sold.com.au - The Sold.com.au Big Brand Sale
- New PCs, notebooks, digital cameras, phones and more ... Sale ends June 12

Dear Sheila

i was taught not to tell the patient what the remedy was on the grounds
that their expectation/imagination might confuse the response and their
reporting. this was 20 odd years ago.

I always tell the patient what they are taking if they are interested
and believe that to be a fundamental ethical obligation. in the uk if
the soc of hom proceed with statutory recognition as the directors are
in favour of so doing it will be the patients legal right for access to
their notes and therefore to know what they are being prescribed. quite
right too i think .

my own experience is that the majority of patients who want to know and
have real concerns about what they are taking, have a real wish to be
actively involved in their treatment, and have often been subject to
authority or power confrontations in medical and other situations
before. it can then be extremely helpful and therapeutic for them to
take an active role and once they have positively asserted their right
to know and it has been respected, they can relax into the process.

if the homoepath doesnt want to tell the patient for whatever reason i
think that is fine provided that it is clearly agreed and understood
before the consultation.

best wishes
mark

--
Mark Young

Dear Mark,

Anything else would be right out of line with mainstream medical ethics. Why
would homeopaths want to stay on the a backward fringe?

Sue