The Patient and their Disease
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:32 pm
Dear Minimus,
There are those who think one should treat the patient not the
disease and those who think one should treat the disease not the patient.
Then these two argue with each other with out seeing the truth that lies
somewhere in the middle. These are polarized extreme views based on a false
dualism. The patient is a person who is suffering from disease. They are a
mutually interdependent phenomena.
For this reason, the homoeopath studies the complete case history,
exciting and fundamental causes, inherited and acquired miasms, the
physical constitution, the character of the intellect and emotional
disposition, their occupation and talents, their lifestyle and habits,
their social and domestic relationships, their age and stage of the disease
state, and the sexuality (Org. aph. 5). Complementary to this the healing
artist assesses the essential nature of the objective signs, coincidental
befallments and subjective symptoms of the body and soul because they
compose the only conceivable Gestalt of the disease (Org. aph 6).
This is accomplished by a study of the locations, sensations and
complaints, the modalities and concomitant symptoms of the individual
disease case at hand. Through careful analysis of all this data the
homoeopath come to a differential diagnosis that assist in understand the
essential nature of the patient's sufferings. Is this disease state acute
or chronic? Is the disease a singular unified expression? Is the illness
presented in layers of dormant, latent and active disease layers? Is the
disease state a complex disease where more than miasm is active? Each of
these conditions takes a different case management strategy. All of these
conditions are found in the Organon, the Chronic Diseases and the Lesser
Writings of Hahnemann.
Who first discussed the idea of thinking of the patient first and the
disease second? Was it Kent, Roberts, Close, Blackie, or some modern
homoeopath, etc?. In a letter addressed to the Homœopathic Times in 1850,
Reverend Everest speaks of the “most marvelous cure of the child of M.
Legouve, a well known French Poet”. In June 1887 the Homœopathic World
republished an article printed in Le Temps that recorded an account by
Legouve of the cure of the his daughter. This letter can be found in
Bradford’s Life and Letters of Hahnemann on page 410. The poet was able to
capture the episode as only an artist could and his recording of details is
laudable. In this letter the poet quotes Hahnemann in the following manner.
"At another time I heard him [Hahnemann] make use of this expression,
which sounds so strange if taken in a literal sense, but which is so
profound if properly understood.‘There are no such things as diseases;
there are only patients.’
The first homoeopath to point out the importance of the individual
patient's response to their disease state was Samuel Hahnemann. As the
eyewitness states, the above sounds very strange if it is taken literally,
but it is quite profound if it is put in its proper prospective. Five
individual patients may suffer from organic pathology of the heart yet each
individual constitution will act individually according to its
predispositions (nature) and environment (nurture) and need a different
remedy.
It is the striking, extraordinary, unusual, and odd characteristic
symptoms of each individual patient that leads to the proper homoeopathic
remedy for the disease case not the symptoms common to all diseases (Org.
aph 153). This is why Hahnemann wrote in the Chronic Diseases that a remedy
is chosen by the symptoms of the main complaint as well as "according to
the different constitutions and other ailment attendant to it". This is the
origin of the concomitant symptoms. To use a location, sensation and
modification of the a main complaint without the concomitants can lead to
suppression and the decline of the patient's condition.
A 12th century hexameter made a deep impression on the mind of
Boenninghausen. This verse was used as a meditation to judge the nature of
the deviation of the spirit from the path of harmony. The verse contains
the following seven keywords. Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus Auxiliis? Cur?
Quomodo? Quando? These seven rubrics mean Who? What? Where? With what? Why?
In what manner? When? The Baron suggested that these seven universal
questions contained all the essential facets of a proper case. This analogy
of Boenninghausen's demonstrates how deeply the homœopaths of old searched
for the deeper truths. Boenninghausen emphasized the importance of
understanding "who" the patient is as an individual as well as studying
their disease state. Baron wrote:
"Quis [Who]? As a matter of course the personality, the individuality
of the patient must stand at the head of the image of the disease, for the
natural disposition rests on it.
The Lesser Writings, Boenninghausen, A Contribution to the Judgment
Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms, page 107.
Since Hahnemann's time homoeopaths have spoken in term of the patient
but they understood that this is not to be taken literally as if they
should ignore the complexities of the patient's disease state. They studied
the illness of each individual patient very closely and were well aware
that there are acute and chronic diseases and singular disease expressions
as well as layers and complex disorders where more than one disease
manifestation is present. Today we have some one-sided constitutionalist
that have taken the Hahnemann's idea of the patient literally and tried to
ignore the disease. This has caused others to rebel against this one-sided
literal interpretational of Hahnemann's statement.
I sympathize with this reaction but I do not take up the other extreme
of saying there are no patients only diseases. I have personally questioned
the one-sided constitutional approach which uses all the past and present
symptoms as a grand totality and tries to give one grand medicine that is
supposed to be the one remedy for all situations at all times. Such
practitioners do not believe in acute and chronic diseases, miasms, layers
or complex diseases, etc. They don't understand the teachings of Samuel
Hahnemann and do not bring them up to date to be used in our times.
Hahnemann passed on some maxims that when taken out of context can lead
to extreme views. If all Hahnemann's teachings are put in their proper
prospective their underlying essence offers a perfect balance that show how
to take complete case and find a true simillimum according to time and
circumstances. Therefore, I don't think in terms of the patient not the
disease or the disease not the patient. I think in terms of patients and
their diseases.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
There are those who think one should treat the patient not the
disease and those who think one should treat the disease not the patient.
Then these two argue with each other with out seeing the truth that lies
somewhere in the middle. These are polarized extreme views based on a false
dualism. The patient is a person who is suffering from disease. They are a
mutually interdependent phenomena.
For this reason, the homoeopath studies the complete case history,
exciting and fundamental causes, inherited and acquired miasms, the
physical constitution, the character of the intellect and emotional
disposition, their occupation and talents, their lifestyle and habits,
their social and domestic relationships, their age and stage of the disease
state, and the sexuality (Org. aph. 5). Complementary to this the healing
artist assesses the essential nature of the objective signs, coincidental
befallments and subjective symptoms of the body and soul because they
compose the only conceivable Gestalt of the disease (Org. aph 6).
This is accomplished by a study of the locations, sensations and
complaints, the modalities and concomitant symptoms of the individual
disease case at hand. Through careful analysis of all this data the
homoeopath come to a differential diagnosis that assist in understand the
essential nature of the patient's sufferings. Is this disease state acute
or chronic? Is the disease a singular unified expression? Is the illness
presented in layers of dormant, latent and active disease layers? Is the
disease state a complex disease where more than miasm is active? Each of
these conditions takes a different case management strategy. All of these
conditions are found in the Organon, the Chronic Diseases and the Lesser
Writings of Hahnemann.
Who first discussed the idea of thinking of the patient first and the
disease second? Was it Kent, Roberts, Close, Blackie, or some modern
homoeopath, etc?. In a letter addressed to the Homœopathic Times in 1850,
Reverend Everest speaks of the “most marvelous cure of the child of M.
Legouve, a well known French Poet”. In June 1887 the Homœopathic World
republished an article printed in Le Temps that recorded an account by
Legouve of the cure of the his daughter. This letter can be found in
Bradford’s Life and Letters of Hahnemann on page 410. The poet was able to
capture the episode as only an artist could and his recording of details is
laudable. In this letter the poet quotes Hahnemann in the following manner.
"At another time I heard him [Hahnemann] make use of this expression,
which sounds so strange if taken in a literal sense, but which is so
profound if properly understood.‘There are no such things as diseases;
there are only patients.’
The first homoeopath to point out the importance of the individual
patient's response to their disease state was Samuel Hahnemann. As the
eyewitness states, the above sounds very strange if it is taken literally,
but it is quite profound if it is put in its proper prospective. Five
individual patients may suffer from organic pathology of the heart yet each
individual constitution will act individually according to its
predispositions (nature) and environment (nurture) and need a different
remedy.
It is the striking, extraordinary, unusual, and odd characteristic
symptoms of each individual patient that leads to the proper homoeopathic
remedy for the disease case not the symptoms common to all diseases (Org.
aph 153). This is why Hahnemann wrote in the Chronic Diseases that a remedy
is chosen by the symptoms of the main complaint as well as "according to
the different constitutions and other ailment attendant to it". This is the
origin of the concomitant symptoms. To use a location, sensation and
modification of the a main complaint without the concomitants can lead to
suppression and the decline of the patient's condition.
A 12th century hexameter made a deep impression on the mind of
Boenninghausen. This verse was used as a meditation to judge the nature of
the deviation of the spirit from the path of harmony. The verse contains
the following seven keywords. Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus Auxiliis? Cur?
Quomodo? Quando? These seven rubrics mean Who? What? Where? With what? Why?
In what manner? When? The Baron suggested that these seven universal
questions contained all the essential facets of a proper case. This analogy
of Boenninghausen's demonstrates how deeply the homœopaths of old searched
for the deeper truths. Boenninghausen emphasized the importance of
understanding "who" the patient is as an individual as well as studying
their disease state. Baron wrote:
"Quis [Who]? As a matter of course the personality, the individuality
of the patient must stand at the head of the image of the disease, for the
natural disposition rests on it.
The Lesser Writings, Boenninghausen, A Contribution to the Judgment
Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms, page 107.
Since Hahnemann's time homoeopaths have spoken in term of the patient
but they understood that this is not to be taken literally as if they
should ignore the complexities of the patient's disease state. They studied
the illness of each individual patient very closely and were well aware
that there are acute and chronic diseases and singular disease expressions
as well as layers and complex disorders where more than one disease
manifestation is present. Today we have some one-sided constitutionalist
that have taken the Hahnemann's idea of the patient literally and tried to
ignore the disease. This has caused others to rebel against this one-sided
literal interpretational of Hahnemann's statement.
I sympathize with this reaction but I do not take up the other extreme
of saying there are no patients only diseases. I have personally questioned
the one-sided constitutional approach which uses all the past and present
symptoms as a grand totality and tries to give one grand medicine that is
supposed to be the one remedy for all situations at all times. Such
practitioners do not believe in acute and chronic diseases, miasms, layers
or complex diseases, etc. They don't understand the teachings of Samuel
Hahnemann and do not bring them up to date to be used in our times.
Hahnemann passed on some maxims that when taken out of context can lead
to extreme views. If all Hahnemann's teachings are put in their proper
prospective their underlying essence offers a perfect balance that show how
to take complete case and find a true simillimum according to time and
circumstances. Therefore, I don't think in terms of the patient not the
disease or the disease not the patient. I think in terms of patients and
their diseases.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000