Hi Rochelle and all,
I hope I'm not missing something big, but am really puzzled by this...
This seems to be just the sort of situation the list was debating in the
not-so-distant past -- E.g., Can remedies really cause aggravations, or does
that (aggravation) happen only if someone "believes" it can? [In this case
it seems that aggravation has occurred despite innocence on the part of both
parties.] Some folks were wondering, Are we doing our patients a disservice
by bringing up any possibility of aggravation or etc., and taking the risk
of making them "believe in" something that would otherwise never happen?
[Sounds like this patient *ought* to have been informed of that possibility,
and what to do if it happened!] And someone wondered, Would people really
be goofy enough to keep taking a remedy that's making them worse? In this
case she is continuing the medicine that's making her worse at (ouch) the
well-meaning, but I think mistaken, direction of knowledgeable people.
Not meaning to sound like Dave H here
, but I do think this is an
illustration of where Hahnemann's instructions are both very clear, and also
"safer" than some others going around! Can't quote the aphorisms, but I'm
pretty sure the Organon is source for the usual instruction to STOP the
remedy as soon as there is *any* notable change, whether for better or
worse! If you've had improvement, then stop the remedy to see how often you
*need* to repeat (remember, we are aiming for the *least* amount of medicine
necessary to accomplish the cure); if you've had a worsening, stop the
remedy to see whether the situation improves after stopping -- and don't
take any more until you've seen a levelling off, then an improvement, and
*then* a relapse. I know that re-dosing on a schedule is fairly common
practice, and I realize that usually it seems to work out alright, but in
this case it didn't, and I'm sort of baffled as to why "stop the remedy"
wasn't the first thing she was told...
To me this sounds like a very clear "overreaction"/agravation/proving. The
first thing to try for any aggravation -- unless it is unbearably severe or
dangerous -- is *nothing*; stop the remedy and almost always it will pass
off on its own -- this is one of the beauties of homeopathy! If a remedy
causes problems, you simply stop taking it, and the problems (almost always)
stop. If the problem was simply overreaction from a well-chosen remedy, at
this point improvement should resume. But the longer she keeps over-dosing,
the more persistent the problems might become.
Taking a lower potency of the same can be tried if the aggravation does not
fade quickly and/or is severe enough to warrant it (e.g. either dangerous or
"unbearable"), but this wouldn't usually be the case. (Taking a higher
potency to stop an aggravation I am less familiar with.)
That she felt so good before she got into overdose suggests that the remedy
may be a good one for her -- but she is sensitive, and needs to follow
Hahnemann's advice about repeating *as needed*, and using the minimum amount
of medicine necessary.
Sorry if this is coming out as a rant...
But really, "stop the remedy" should have been the *first* thing tried, and
why wasn't it????
I guess this is the key to my confusion. She says: "The student and the
helpline seemed to be of the opinion that my body is actually asking for
more when my symptoms worsen." Since she got that from two unrelated
sources, it must not be as foreign a concept as it seems to me... Can
anyone explain where this comes from??? You might take more antibiotic or
other drug to try to meet worsening symptoms, but I've never heard of taking
this approach with remedies. Was I sleeping, or ???
Sleepy and bemused,
Shannon
on 8/27/03 3:10 PM,
rochelle@ntlworld.com at
rochelle@ntlworld.com wrote: