Minutus

My own thoughts about this is that very rarely you need to go outside of the
presenting complaint - the causation will be there along with all the
valuable signs and symptoms of the diseased state as it appears at the time.
The presenting complaint IS what needs to be cured because it represents
what the client has come to see you about. It represents the diseased state
at that point in time. Even if the aetiology of the diseased state reaches
back a long time, there is nothing you can do to heal that part, it has been
and gone - what you do treat is how the diseased state has 'shape shifted'
to the presenting complaint - by treating that, by healing that, you
automatically incorporate the causation and that becomes healed as well.

Easy peasy (

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 22/3/04 8:21 PM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

At 9:53 AM +0530 3/22/04, J.Venkatasubramanian wrote:
Indeed. And seeing THAT comes with experience. And some are better
than others at seeing it.

The "presenting complaint" is sometimes NOT what needs to be cured--
but if you don't take care of THAT, then the patient might not come
back.

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

Hi Joy,

One problem I have with the "presenting complaint only" approach is that (a)
people new to homeopathy don't know what we consider "real" complaints (when
I first started, I thought that if I didn't have an allopathic "name" for my
complaint, then there was nothing to be done about it, and that my inability
to think straight was just something I had to live with, not worth bringing
up!); and (b) the things (including imbalances) that we have had all of our
lives we tend to take for granted, may not even be *aware* of them, and if
we are aware, assume that other people have them too, but just "hide it
better" or whatever.

So, in my experience (and again, my own experience has no doubt colored my
understanding of subsequent experiences), someone's "presenting complaint"
may have little or nothing to do with what actually needs to be cured. How,
then, do you approach a case where, e.g., the patient comes in complaining
only of a local or episodic or acute problem, but you know (from observation
or casetaking or reports of others, whatever) that there is a great deal
more needing attention? Do you leave all that out of your prescribing, or
ask the patient's permission to look farther, or ??

Shannon
on 3/22/04 6:24 AM, Joy Lucas at joy.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

To answer a) - this is all about quality teaching and gaining knowledge and
why I think people shouldn't be prescribing on chronic cases until they DO
know how to approach the presenting complaint.

The rest is really about learning how to take the case in the best possible
manner.

How can the presenting complaint, whether it be acute, local, chronic or
whatever, have little or nothing to with what needs to be cured?

Whether the presenting complaint is on the physical, emotional or mental
plane, first and foremost it should be given priority in the case taking.
The client will WANT to talk about this primary condition, it will be what
they are reacting to, have feelings about and they will have intimate
knowledge about it. Even the most taciturn of clients will be more familiar
with their condition than anyone else, so this is where the case taking
should begin. The whole essence of the case is within the presenting
complaint because this is the place to begin in case taking (however much
you choose to expand on that), it will be what represents the whole and rest
of the case. Thus, the totality of the presenting complaint is the biggest
set of clues that the vital force can give us as to how to cure the person.

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 22/3/04 1:20 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Hi Joy,

One problem I have with the "presenting complaint only" approach is that (a)
people new to homeopathy don't know what we consider "real" complaints (when
I first started, I thought that if I didn't have an allopathic "name" for my
complaint, then there was nothing to be done about it, and that my inability
to think straight was just something I had to live with, not worth bringing
up!); and (b) the things (including imbalances) that we have had all of our
lives we tend to take for granted, may not even be *aware* of them, and if
we are aware, assume that other people have them too, but just "hide it
better" or whatever.

So, in my experience (and again, my own experience has no doubt colored my
understanding of subsequent experiences), someone's "presenting complaint"
may have little or nothing to do with what actually needs to be cured. How,
then, do you approach a case where, e.g., the patient comes in complaining
only of a local or episodic or acute problem, but you know (from observation
or casetaking or reports of others, whatever) that there is a great deal
more needing attention? Do you leave all that out of your prescribing, or
ask the patient's permission to look farther, or ??

Shannon

Hi Joy,

Oops, I didn't make myself clear:

on 3/22/04 8:34 AM, Joy Lucas at joy.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
No, I mean the *patients* don't know what we consider a "real" complaint.
My example: I was introduced to homeopathy when an osteopath referred me to
a homeopath (and bless him, he specified a *classical* homeopath) for help
with a joint injury that wasn't healing. That was my "presenting
complaint", the only thing I had come in for. If my homeopath had stopped
with that, it would have been such a HUGE loss, because what I *really*
needed treatment for was e.g. inability to think. Fortunately, because he
was a "cosntitutional" prescriber, he didn't stop with asking me about the
arm, but took "the whole ("constitutional") case" and gave me a remedy that
utterly turned my life around. Could that have happened if all he had tried
to treat was my arm?

Actually, the arm wasn't helped by that first remedy, but I was so impressed
by all that *was* helped by it, that I continued, and the arm was eventually
helped in other ways, and finally came up for a remedy of its "own", years
later. I wonder whether a more locally aimed remedy could have helped the
arm, or whether instead I would just have concluded that "homeopathy
doesn't work"? Dang, where's that "alternate reality machine"... (The
remedy that apparently cured it, years later, was cann-i. What are the
chances that *that* would have come up as a local prescription?)
Joy, I'm confident that *you* will take a "presenting complaint totality"
that includes fine details of the emotional state and/or the relationship
(if any) between this episode and their earlier state. But I know that this
is not always done. Maybe that's the answer to my question; that the
presenting complaint is the doorway we enter the case by, not the entire
destination of casetaking?

Thanks,
Shannon

I like Joy's explanation here of how the presenting complaint contains the whole of what needs to be cured. I often think of each person as a hologram -- by definition the whole is there in each molecule, each moment. Our challenge is finding that "whole" through the momentary fragment along with the thousands of other little moments we receive in our case taking.

Rosemary

Dear Shannon, I don't think it really matters whether the client knows what
we consider to be a "real" complaint or not - they arrive with whatever ails
them at any particular time and that is what is important to them and it is
what the vital force has 'chosen' to represent the diseased state at that
point in time. And vital it is.

But, from what you have written, I think it is me who hasn't made myself
clear. The presenting complaint can encompass, for example, years of misery,
turmoil, abuse, disappointment, etc which culminate into a diseased state,
which can be a mixture of physical, emotional or mental ailments. The
presenting complaint might, indeed, appear trivial - on the other hand it
might not - but either way, the presenting complaint is the starting point
at which the client will express themselves. They will use language which
will hint at the real cause of their diseased state, e.g. stabbing pains,
pressure pains, "the need to escape", bearing down pains, etc etc etc. They
will ultimately, through careful case taking encompass their life and give
illumination into that level of disturbance via the presenting complaint.
Ignore it at your peril

As you said - "a joint injury that would not heal". Any Homeopath worth
their weight in sucrose pillules would use that as THE best starting point
there ever could be.

The presenting complaint NEVER means just local sx (to me anyway).

I think we actually agree here and apologies for not writing it clearer but
my emphasis always has to be on the presenting complaint because without the
presenting complaint we probably wouldn't have a case at all

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 22/3/04 3:46 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Hi Joy,

Oops, I didn't make myself clear:

on 3/22/04 8:34 AM, Joy Lucas at joy.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
No, I mean the *patients* don't know what we consider a "real" complaint.
My example: I was introduced to homeopathy when an osteopath referred me to
a homeopath (and bless him, he specified a *classical* homeopath) for help
with a joint injury that wasn't healing. That was my "presenting
complaint", the only thing I had come in for. If my homeopath had stopped
with that, it would have been such a HUGE loss, because what I *really*
needed treatment for was e.g. inability to think. Fortunately, because he
was a "cosntitutional" prescriber, he didn't stop with asking me about the
arm, but took "the whole ("constitutional") case" and gave me a remedy that
utterly turned my life around. Could that have happened if all he had tried
to treat was my arm?

Actually, the arm wasn't helped by that first remedy, but I was so impressed
by all that *was* helped by it, that I continued, and the arm was eventually
helped in other ways, and finally came up for a remedy of its "own", years
later. I wonder whether a more locally aimed remedy could have helped the
arm, or whether instead I would just have concluded that "homeopathy
doesn't work"? Dang, where's that "alternate reality machine"... (The
remedy that apparently cured it, years later, was cann-i. What are the
chances that *that* would have come up as a local prescription?)
Joy, I'm confident that *you* will take a "presenting complaint totality"
that includes fine details of the emotional state and/or the relationship
(if any) between this episode and their earlier state. But I know that this
is not always done. Maybe that's the answer to my question; that the
presenting complaint is the doorway we enter the case by, not the entire
destination of casetaking?

Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Joy and Shannon,
Some situations: When the same presenting complaint persists: I had(thank
God, Gone) an inveterate
constipation with soft stools for close to twenty years . The PC with me was
always constipation. Here
in my case what helped was the concomittants like urging after breakfast and
prickling in the palate.
After carbn s , the whole picture changed. Here what had to be cured was the
concomittants and the
constipation vanished.

But when you treat some other cases you keep (you need to !) the focus on
the PC and they are
just run of the mill cases. (locations- sensations-time- modality)

The majority of cases presented to us ( with allopathic bungling) are of the
first variety. (Apologising
prior for pretending of expertise:)the individualisation is the key whether
the case is direct or
indirect. Hunt for the peculiar.( easier said than done). This, will mostly
be found outside the PC !
Kent says that this is what separates the patient from others presenting
with a miriad of identical
or common symptoms.

But still you have not mentioned what the PC is. Is it just the complaint or
the picture ? The picture
includes the peculiar. If it is the latter, all I have written above is just
for myself - a recollection.

Regards
Venkat

The presenting complaint is the individual case in front of you, it is what
needs to be cured and one should use it to explore whatever else there is
that might help confirm the simillimum.

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 23/3/04 2:16 AM, J.Venkatasubramanian at apexpreci@eth.net wrote:

Dear Joy and Shannon,
edited

But still you have not mentioned what the PC is. Is it just the complaint or
the picture ? The picture
includes the peculiar. If it is the latter, all I have written above is just
for myself - a recollection.

Regards
Venkat
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]