Minutus

On the contrary Soroush, I personally think your question has been answered,
i.e. there possibly is no way to guarantee your nearest and dearest will get
to see a 'good' homeopath, if you do not know them and their experience
first hand.

Yes, we probably all agree that homeopathy is only as good as the
practitioner but the registers are there for potential clients to make their
own judgement - how do you pick a good one? You phone your nearest one, or
the one who has a nice name, or whatever and you phone them up and talk to
them and ask questions and decide for yourself if they are up to scratch. If
the client is new to homeopathy then they have to use other instincts rather
than asking specific questions regarding what method of homeopathy one
practices etc etc.

You could develop a list of questions for the public to ask their potential
homeopath to be, but I think that is condescending, assuming that the public
can't fathom their own way round this.

When I refer clients that I cannot fit in I encourage them as much as
possible to ask questions until they are satisfied.

I don't really see what the problem is

best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 10/9/03 4:33 PM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:
I was hoping for a good debate by with thanks to colleagues who have
replied, I must say that none of you so far - apart from congratulating each
other - have answered my question. Yes we all know 'Homoeopathy Good,
Allopathy Bad', but that was not the question! And the idea is not to keep
the public ignorant of the differences. Ignorance has never benefited
anyone other than the crooked.

So that there is no doubt, I state the problem in perhaps more personal
manner:-
Your nearest and dearest is in town X in country Y. S/he is not well at
all. Even if it was advisable, you cannot attend to them.
You have access to a listing of Homoeopaths for Town X and Country Y.
How do you select a good homoeopath?

[Let us accept that there are good and bad in all professions.]

Let us also remind ourselves that Kent said that he would rather go into a
pit full of vipers than be treated by poorly trained homoeopaths. Do not
also forget that homoeopathy is safe in safe & well trained hands - that is
why we say to people you need to see a homoeopath, do treat yourself, nor
good to Boots (or other Chemist/Pharmacy shop) for the guy at the counter to
prescribe for you. I guess a few experienced colleagues have also seen the
results of someone by using remedies from a homoeopathic pharmacy completely
messing up a case - making them difficult to cure.

Are we implying that all colleges around the world (or even in the same
country) have the same standards? Do organisations like the Society of
Homoeopaths; ARH; UK Hom Med Ass etc ensure that the membership of the
Register is based on the highest common denominator of safety, good training
and practise?

If our training and ways of practising are poor our patients have no chance
of reaching the ideals of Aph 9.

Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Soroush,

I think it is hard to evaluate any practitioner, whether in homepathy or any
other. But the things I would like to know would include, where or with
whom they trained, for how long, and how long they have practiced in the
same area (if someone has prescribed for many years, but never followed the
same patients for more than a few months, they have no way of assessing
their own levels of success!), and whether they use other methods as well as
homeopathy. But I don't think there's any real formula for how to *use*
that information. If a person uses several methods, does that mean they're
not that good at any of them? (Answer: Sometimes yes, sometimes no!)

If a person hasn't been in practice very long, does that mean they're not
competent? (Answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no!)

If a person trained with someone famous, does that mean they're an excellent
prescriber? (Answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no!) Etc.

I put a lot of weight on the "feeling" that I get from talking with someone
-- do I feel they are speaking honestly, connecting with me, that they are a
well balanced, clear-thinking individual? Do they seem to share a
compatible understanding of the issues that are important to me, etc.

Sometimes a practitioner that didn't work out for one person will work out
great for another, and vice versa.

Beyond that, I would make my best choice, then ask my friend or etc. to tell
me *their* impression of the homeopath, and I would see how the process
goes. I don't think there's an easy answer on this one...

Also, if the only or best homepath available were one who practiced by
different means that what I was comfortable with, I would have to decide
whether that represented an improvement over the next best option
(allopathic care, perhaps?). And that, I think, is a very personal
decision, not cut-and-dried!

What would your process be?
I think no matter how we approach it, there aren't any guarantees, you just
have to make your best guess, and monitor the results...

Best,
Shannon
on 10/9/03 10:33 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:

on 10/9/03 2:19 PM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

)
Yep, and some who are usually very adept, will miss "the obvious"
occasionally, e.g. perhaps in a patient that falls within their "blind
spot". Sigh, no easy answers...

Shannon

Racist remarks from writings "before we knew any better" are difficult...
On the one hand I agree, shouldn't stand as tho one thinks it's right. On
the other hand, doesn't it insult our intelligence just a little to add,
"but of course that was an inapt and offensive metaphor"... We all *know*
that it is, right?

Do I let my kids read Huck Finn and such? Yup, I do. They understand (and
we talk about) that society has learned some things since then. And we, of
course, we understand the same. So, what to do? Remark and insult some, or
don't remark, and make others wonder...

Shannon
on 10/10/03 3:07 AM, tanya at tamarque@frontiernet.net wrote:

Hi Julian,

These situations
always interest me.
Are you able to say what the fourth one did or saw differently from the
other three?

Shannon