Treat the Patient/Disease
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:44 am
Hi all,
This caught my interest from a post to Homeolist. Interested to hear
whether anyone (Andrew, are you on?) wanted to comment?
on 2/20/03 3:08 PM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:
This
is interesting in regard to two periodically re-surfacing arguments:
One re the meaning of the term "constitution", which Hahnemann seems
here to be using in the sense of "how the person is, overall, in the
present" (not in the sense of, "the deepest level of genetic functioning,
which they might get to some day once they are "heatlhy", e.g. a la
Eizayaga);
and second, about whether Hahnemann advocated "treat the disease", or
"treat the patient." Here he is (I gather) is saying that selection of the
remedy *for gonorrhea* is dependent upon (the "constitution" and) "the other
ailments attending it." I *think* this would be taken to mean either "treat
the patient" (where "the patient" includes the targeted disease, but also
the broader condition of the patient, including their other "ailments")
and/or, a different definition of "disease", wherein "gonorrhea" is not "the
disease" to be treated, but merely a *part* of the overall disease-state
being treated (which some of us would simply call, "the constitution",
present tense...)?
Does anyone feel inspired to try to convince me that this is consistent with
the idea that Hahnemann aimed to "treat the disease"?
Cheers,
Shannon
This caught my interest from a post to Homeolist. Interested to hear
whether anyone (Andrew, are you on?) wanted to comment?
on 2/20/03 3:08 PM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:
This
is interesting in regard to two periodically re-surfacing arguments:
One re the meaning of the term "constitution", which Hahnemann seems
here to be using in the sense of "how the person is, overall, in the
present" (not in the sense of, "the deepest level of genetic functioning,
which they might get to some day once they are "heatlhy", e.g. a la
Eizayaga);
and second, about whether Hahnemann advocated "treat the disease", or
"treat the patient." Here he is (I gather) is saying that selection of the
remedy *for gonorrhea* is dependent upon (the "constitution" and) "the other
ailments attending it." I *think* this would be taken to mean either "treat
the patient" (where "the patient" includes the targeted disease, but also
the broader condition of the patient, including their other "ailments")
and/or, a different definition of "disease", wherein "gonorrhea" is not "the
disease" to be treated, but merely a *part* of the overall disease-state
being treated (which some of us would simply call, "the constitution",
present tense...)?
Does anyone feel inspired to try to convince me that this is consistent with
the idea that Hahnemann aimed to "treat the disease"?
Cheers,
Shannon