Minutus

Shannon * Then again, what causes, carries, whatever, the susceptibility, and what determines the *expression* of the miasmatic influences, or any other disease influence?

Andrew * Hn warned against building up some kind of metaphysical system from the 'bare' language of nature as expressed in
symptoms.

Hahnemann * Aph 6 The unprejudiced observer realizes the futility of metaphysical speculations that cannot be verified by experiment, and no matter how clever he is, he sees in any given disease only the disturbances of the body and soul which are perceptible to the senses: subjective symptoms, incidental symptoms, objective symptoms, i.e. deviations from the former healthy condition of the individual now sick which the patient personally feels, which people around him notice, which the physician sees in him.
The totality of these perceptible signs represents the entire extent of the sickness; together they constitute its true and only conceivable form.
... excerpts of foot note ... As far as the physician is concerned is not that which reveals itself to the senses in symptoms the very disease itself? He can never see the immaterial element, the vital force causing the disease. He need never see it; to cure he needs only to see and understand its morbific effects.

As a student I watch the debate on constitional prescribing and it hasn't made sense to me so far. I realize it comes from small parts in the materia medica such as...

"Pulsatilla will be the more efficacious when the patient exhibits a timid, lachrymose disposition, with tendency to inward grief and silent peevishness, or at all events a mild and yielding disposition, especially when the patient in normal health was good-tempered and mild. Pulsatilla is especially adapted for slow phlegmatic temperaments; and little suited for persons who form their resolutions with rapidity and are quick in their movements, even though they may appear to be good tempered."

This seems to be saying that you administer a remedy using M/E symptoms that *differ* to what they would have during the healthy state, not really on what they are all the time.
It seems a better word to adopt than "constitution" is disposition, or do people think they are actually the same word?
And even if a practioner is convinced that their patient has a certain constituional type, it is my understanding that they should still be prescribing a remedy on the symptoms picture *as it is manifested at this time*. I think what others have said that a patient may exhibit a variety of "constitutional" remedies throughout their life makes more sense than labelling someone as a particular type. If there are over 5000 remedies available, I personnally can't see that a particular individual will only ever need one of them.

Jayne Evans
BIH Dip Hom Student
Abu Dhabi, UAE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

that *differ* to what they would have during the >healthy state, not really
on what they are all the time.
absolutely correct. the point of understanding the normal 'constitution' or
disposition or tendencies is to LEAVE THEM OUT of the prescription, and to
use as a baseline to detect DEVIATIONS from the same.
I vaguely remember reading a case where Kent prescribed Ars in a fever case,
when the physicals were not distinctive, on the basis that the patient was
getting irritated by a painting which hung slightly askew on the wall
[fastidious]. this was a deviation from the normal temperament. if the
patient was fastidious by nature then this would not be a symptom, since
there was no deviation. so 'constitutional' [even worse, 'classical']
prescribers put in precisely what must be left out. No wonder 'classical'
homeopathy gets such meagre results and relies on a small coterie of 'true
believing' patients who attend month after month and year after year without
much result.

people think they are actually the same >word?
the concept is pretty well established from ayurvedic medicine with its idea
of the base mix of humours. we have a natural innate constitution, and in
so far as we are ill we have deviated from this.
but ayurveda or TCM also works to strengthen the innate constituion in the
absence of illness. 'Constitutional' homeopaths claim we can do this but
where is the evidence? this idea is entirely absent in the Organon.

constituional type, it is my understanding that they >should still be
prescribing a remedy on the symptoms picture >*as it is manifested at this
time*.
Hn homeopathy prescribes on the [important] symptoms and nothing else. if
people want to come up with a constitutional theory then they are welcome to
try it. but don't use Hn homeopathy.

andrew

Andrew and all,

really
or
case,
without

A changed mental state refers to the situation in the development of an
acute disease state from a chronic disease state not necessarily a healthy
state. Then you (may) need a different Rx to the chronic state. I think
you are assuming the previous state prior to the present disease state was a
ealthy one. Thats not what Hn was inferring.

The idea of constitution is often used to differentiate between treating
clinically and treating a "bigger picture". To keep perspective we should
rmember that in the above mentioned scenario, where the mental state
changes, that is dealing with the development of an acute disease. What we
must determine is whether the state that was there originally was a
pathological state. In this instance the fastidiousness could have been
part of a total Thuja picture if we look at the rest of the chronic state.
But then the state previous to the current disease state was not a healthy
state !!

This is the basis of Hn explanation concerning acute flare ups of psora. In
the instance of a new picture emerging in the acute this may point to a new
remedy for the acute, and then afterwards you treat the chronic state to
prevent relapse.

Now in cases where people correctly prescribe for the so-called
constitution, it is usually when the acute phase does not present a new
picture. The mental state is part of the chronic state, and the flare up is
particular Sx, not clearly pointing to a new state. The mistake here would
be to do a "clinical" Rx based on a few local Sx where the chosen Rx does
not have the mental disposition. Just because the patient is worse with
motion, doesn't mean we must give Bryonia. that is the error of some
clinical books like Jouanny.

So a "constitutional" precriber is looking at the presenting Sx in a
totality, if the mental state has not changed. An excessively fastidious
patient could have a tendency or disposition to develop certain disturbances
of the vital force, if the fastidiousness is expressed out of proportion to
the requirement for regular life. It opens the patient up to being
susceptible to certain stresses. Imagine a fastidous nurse working with a
sloppy doctor, the stress that can build up and possibly the suppression of
anger etc that could result. Then she gets a stomach ulcer. Sure there is
suppressed anger, but there is still the fastidousness which may need to be
taken into account in the choice of remedy, because we are dealing with a
chronic disease state which hasn't fully developed a new acute state.

The extreme case can be where the local presenting symptoms such as an
eczema ( with attendant modalities etc) might not even be found in the
proving of the simillimum. Sankaran talks about this when he discusses the
need to take into account the mental/emotional state, which is a chronic
state.

As to the question of what hahnemann said regarding constitution:

§ 5
Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the
most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most
significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable
him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic
miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of
the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and
intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his
social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be
taken into consideration.

i.e the constitution , which a "constitutional" prescriber usually
determines by looking at the "moral and intellectual character" plus other
mental aspects as well as typology. This is not to debate whether we change
the constitution or not, but rather to emphasize that it can be a marker to
the choice of remedy. Same as the "blue eyed /blonde hair" which be one of
the factors in a choice of pulsatilla as Rx. The hair and eyes don't change
colour with treatment, but the clue could be usueful in the selection.

do
idea
look at aphorism 5 again.

to

If the constitutional picture is a feature of the chronic disease state, it
is valid to include it in the analysis (see aphorism 5)
That the constitution can be an integral factor in the production of disease
is borne out in several references e.g. in the observation of proving Sx

§ 136
Although, as has been said, a medicine, on being proved on healthy subjects,
cannot develop in one person all the alterations of health it is capable of
causing, but can only do this when given to many different individuals,
varying in their corporeal and mental constitution ........

Hahnemann or not?

regards,
paul

What you say here Andrew is true, but what also happens sometimes is an
exacerbation of a trait or disposition or tendency. To take the 'fastidious'
example again..

You have a client who is normally very tidy, likes to have a spotless house,
enjoys cleaning, spends a lot of time arranging furniture etc - nothing
wrong with this at all. But then, when they develop asthma, for example,
which indicates an Arsenicum picture this fastidiousness goes to the extreme
- they cannot leave the house until they have vaccuumed everywhere, they
cannot rest until everything is in the right place, the whole tendency has
become out of proportion and needs to be prescribed on and become part of
the symptom picture.

When the arsenicum has healed and the asthma removed they return to being
the person they were before - harmony restored - but where one can still see
traits of a potential arsenicum picture. But because there is balance and
relative health there is no need for a remedy. This happens time and again.

Many people develop the same acute symptom picture as they move through life
and some Homeopaths will say that what acutes children get early in life is
an indication of what remedies might be needed later in life - this has a
lot to do with remedy relationships but is also an indicator to
constitutional type.

Regards, Joy
andrew

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Hi Andrew,

This idea that M/E symptoms used must be only those that deviate from the
"prior, healthy state" (I think that's the way my copy of Organnon states
it) is one that I understand very well as it relates to acute prescribing.
But how does one apply it to miasmatic prescribing, e.g. in the case of a
child who has had severe behavioral problems *from birth*? As is
increasingly common?

Thanks,
Shannon

on 1/14/03 6:16 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:

child who has had severe behavioral problems *from >birth*? As is
increasingly common?

good question...but if the problems are *severe* then there must be some
pretty clear-cut symptoms to go on. if the miasm is creeping along then
there would be a time lag during which a series of apparently acute states
start to form a pattern. so they had a chronic state right from the first
acute flare up, but it was not clear back then. Geukens discusses this in
one of his case studies.

andrew

yes i agree here and didnt think of this kind of example.
however, i would be a little suspicious if, along with the increase in
mental symptoms, there was no change at all in physical symptoms. if this
happens this could be purely a mental illness self induced ['spun out of the
imagination']. a homeopathic remedy treats only diseases caused by or
through a disturbance in the VF, not those from dietary deficiency or purely
mental/emotional disturbances.

andrew

i am not sure i agree with you regarding you. do you think that someone suffering from a paranoid state
cant be treated homeopathically?

tanya
through a disturbance in the VF, not those from dietary deficiency or purely
mental/emotional disturbances.

andrew
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Homeopathy Online Courses!
http://www.minutus.org/course.htm

ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Andrew,

One quick point:

You wrote:
But this is part of the Definition question I'm pursuing.
According to my early and primary understanding of the term's meaning,
"constitutional prescribing" most *definitely* includes miasmatic
prescribing.

I hope to gain a better understanding of just what the various usages of the
term "constitutional remedy" are, and where they began.

Using "constitutional remedy" to mean a remedy which addresses the
(presumed) "healthy" state which underlies any diseases, is an idea I
originally became familiar with in learning a bit about Eizayaga's method.
Prior to that (my second year of school, I think?), I had never heard the
term used that way, and had never heard of the idea of giving a remedy to
someone who had no complaints.

Can anyone tell me whether this practice, and/or this use of the term,
originated with Eizayaga, or who did it before him?

Shannon

?????
I'm *really* hoping this was a typo.
Could I request that nothing else be said about the remark on the list, lest
it pull us back into the stinking swamps...
on 1/17/03 7:00 AM, tanya marquette at tamarque@frontiernet.net wrote: