Acute and Chronic Treatment 1
Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:27 am
Dear Minutus,
Hahnemann taught that there are true acute diseases, acute-like
acerbations of chronic miasms, and chronic diseases. Where there is a true
acute disease or miasm the new crisis symptoms will suspend the chronic
disease or miasms as long as it runs it course. When the acute disease has
completed its duration or been cure by a remedy - the chronic symptoms will
resurface and continue. Hahnemann wrote about such phenomena in aphorism 38
of the Organon. During a true acute disease the symptoms change to manifest
the new exciting cause and acute crisis symptoms. Such a condition calls
for an acute intercurrent remedy.
Hahnemann taught about the way acute and chronic diseases interact in
the Organon. In Aphorisms 35 through 41 he teaches how dissimilar disease
repel, suspend and accommodate one another by forming complex diseases.
This is the origin of the *layer teachings*, which elucidates how
dissimilar causes and symptoms interact. It is interesting that many
Neo-Kentian homeopaths completely reject the idea of "layers" when James
Kent was the first person to use this term. He used it in his lectures on
philosophy in reference to aphorism 35-41 of the Organon and how acute and
chronic disorders interact and how symptoms of the miasms are removed.
In an acute-like acerbation of a chronic disease the chronic symptoms
are intensified but there is no major change in the symptom pattern. A
child taking Pulsatilla for there chronic complaints may show up weeping
with a terrible ear pain with a bland yellow discharge, etc.. This is a
chronic crisis not a new acute exciting cause where the new crisis symptoms
suspends the older chronic symptoms. Here the "so-called" acute and chronic
remedy are the same. I have seen this type of thing many times.
Sometimes, the acute-like acerbation of the chronic disease becomes so
intense that it produces a pathological crisis that changes the symptoms
and causes a new , dangerous, presiding state. For example, the child with
a Pulsatilla ear infection becomes so bad that it produces severe
convulsions where the child rolls there head from side to side, has a
terrible smell from the mouth, and bites the spoon when feeding. Pulsatilla
just does not have these symptoms but they point to a new complementary
remedy like Hellebores. I have also seen such things more than once.
Hahnemann taught that the chronic and anti-miasmatic remedies were
counter indicated during a severe acute disorder and pathological crisis. A
constitutional or anti-miasmic remedy at this time can cause severe
unproductive aggravations and complications. This happens because the
symptoms are being treated out of order because the acute symptoms are
present and the chronic symptoms are suspended. The remedy must have the
presiding symptoms to be effective under these conditions.
Such a remedy should only match the exciting cause and crisis-like
symptoms. To give a remedy that goes to deep into the past at this time may
be counter productive and can be dangerous when there is organic pathology.
I am aware that some teach that if you have a perfect simillimum it
will treat both the acute and chronic states. Yes, I have seen this many,
many times. This is more common in acute-like acerbations of the chronic
diseases but it also can happen in moderate acute diseases. Nevertheless, I
would not turn the "grand constitutional remedy" into a therapeutic dogma.
This is because when there is a very serious crisis, injury or severe shock
or trauma there may be a change in symptoms that lie outside even the best
chosen chronic remedy. If a remedy has worked for years but the patient
gets in a car accident, is almost dying with acute meningitis, or wishes to
kill themselves because of the sudden death of loved one, an acute
intercurrent might be needed. In any case, it should be the nature of the
present cause and symptoms that decide - not the various theories of the
prescriber.
I always find it very hard to accept that there is one grand way to
treat all patients under any and all circumstances. Homoeopathy is first
and for most a system of flexible response that can be tailored to treat a
great number of clinical conditions. The key word is *Individualization*. I
work in Asia where I constantly see patients that would be in the hospital
in the West. I would not want to give all these patients deep action
constitutional and anti-miasmatic remedies in a uniform manner. Some people
are just too sick and do not have the vitality to bear the reactions. Kent
once said "Do not give them that constitutional remedy they needed 20 years
ago". This is because the organic pathology may have now progresses to such
a state that the constitutional remedy may speed their death rather than
cure.
When I was learning how to treat TB in the hospital my teacher told me
"Don't give advanced TB cases deep acting constitutional and anti-miasmatic
remedies!" He told me to first address the pathology by reducing the
tubercles with non-miasmatic plant remedies, and as the symptoms were
reduced and vitality was restored, begin to give deeper acting remedies to
complete the cure. In the hospital there a one-sided constitutionalist that
did not believe in "treating in layers". He wanted to use the "one remedy
for all situations method". He gave a very ill TB patient the anti-psoric
remedy, Lycopodium, because it was his "constitutional remedy" . This
remedy greatly aggravated the state and killed the patient within a few
days. This was a lesson I have never forgotten.
There are some one-sided constitutionalist that forbid the use of any
acute remedies under any conditions. They would rather let their patients
take antibiotics and other drugs than give one of those "no good acute
remedies". They somehow think that all acute remedies will suppress the
symptoms or disrupt the treatment while antibiotics and drugs will not. I
can not for the life of me understand this logic??? After all we learned
from Hahnemann about drug suppression - drugs are supposed to be na better
option in a crisis than homoeopathic remedies??? This is done by persons
who think they do only the best homoeopathy. One can image what Hahnemann
would say about this half-homeopathic approach!
Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
Hahnemann taught that there are true acute diseases, acute-like
acerbations of chronic miasms, and chronic diseases. Where there is a true
acute disease or miasm the new crisis symptoms will suspend the chronic
disease or miasms as long as it runs it course. When the acute disease has
completed its duration or been cure by a remedy - the chronic symptoms will
resurface and continue. Hahnemann wrote about such phenomena in aphorism 38
of the Organon. During a true acute disease the symptoms change to manifest
the new exciting cause and acute crisis symptoms. Such a condition calls
for an acute intercurrent remedy.
Hahnemann taught about the way acute and chronic diseases interact in
the Organon. In Aphorisms 35 through 41 he teaches how dissimilar disease
repel, suspend and accommodate one another by forming complex diseases.
This is the origin of the *layer teachings*, which elucidates how
dissimilar causes and symptoms interact. It is interesting that many
Neo-Kentian homeopaths completely reject the idea of "layers" when James
Kent was the first person to use this term. He used it in his lectures on
philosophy in reference to aphorism 35-41 of the Organon and how acute and
chronic disorders interact and how symptoms of the miasms are removed.
In an acute-like acerbation of a chronic disease the chronic symptoms
are intensified but there is no major change in the symptom pattern. A
child taking Pulsatilla for there chronic complaints may show up weeping
with a terrible ear pain with a bland yellow discharge, etc.. This is a
chronic crisis not a new acute exciting cause where the new crisis symptoms
suspends the older chronic symptoms. Here the "so-called" acute and chronic
remedy are the same. I have seen this type of thing many times.
Sometimes, the acute-like acerbation of the chronic disease becomes so
intense that it produces a pathological crisis that changes the symptoms
and causes a new , dangerous, presiding state. For example, the child with
a Pulsatilla ear infection becomes so bad that it produces severe
convulsions where the child rolls there head from side to side, has a
terrible smell from the mouth, and bites the spoon when feeding. Pulsatilla
just does not have these symptoms but they point to a new complementary
remedy like Hellebores. I have also seen such things more than once.
Hahnemann taught that the chronic and anti-miasmatic remedies were
counter indicated during a severe acute disorder and pathological crisis. A
constitutional or anti-miasmic remedy at this time can cause severe
unproductive aggravations and complications. This happens because the
symptoms are being treated out of order because the acute symptoms are
present and the chronic symptoms are suspended. The remedy must have the
presiding symptoms to be effective under these conditions.
Such a remedy should only match the exciting cause and crisis-like
symptoms. To give a remedy that goes to deep into the past at this time may
be counter productive and can be dangerous when there is organic pathology.
I am aware that some teach that if you have a perfect simillimum it
will treat both the acute and chronic states. Yes, I have seen this many,
many times. This is more common in acute-like acerbations of the chronic
diseases but it also can happen in moderate acute diseases. Nevertheless, I
would not turn the "grand constitutional remedy" into a therapeutic dogma.
This is because when there is a very serious crisis, injury or severe shock
or trauma there may be a change in symptoms that lie outside even the best
chosen chronic remedy. If a remedy has worked for years but the patient
gets in a car accident, is almost dying with acute meningitis, or wishes to
kill themselves because of the sudden death of loved one, an acute
intercurrent might be needed. In any case, it should be the nature of the
present cause and symptoms that decide - not the various theories of the
prescriber.
I always find it very hard to accept that there is one grand way to
treat all patients under any and all circumstances. Homoeopathy is first
and for most a system of flexible response that can be tailored to treat a
great number of clinical conditions. The key word is *Individualization*. I
work in Asia where I constantly see patients that would be in the hospital
in the West. I would not want to give all these patients deep action
constitutional and anti-miasmatic remedies in a uniform manner. Some people
are just too sick and do not have the vitality to bear the reactions. Kent
once said "Do not give them that constitutional remedy they needed 20 years
ago". This is because the organic pathology may have now progresses to such
a state that the constitutional remedy may speed their death rather than
cure.
When I was learning how to treat TB in the hospital my teacher told me
"Don't give advanced TB cases deep acting constitutional and anti-miasmatic
remedies!" He told me to first address the pathology by reducing the
tubercles with non-miasmatic plant remedies, and as the symptoms were
reduced and vitality was restored, begin to give deeper acting remedies to
complete the cure. In the hospital there a one-sided constitutionalist that
did not believe in "treating in layers". He wanted to use the "one remedy
for all situations method". He gave a very ill TB patient the anti-psoric
remedy, Lycopodium, because it was his "constitutional remedy" . This
remedy greatly aggravated the state and killed the patient within a few
days. This was a lesson I have never forgotten.
There are some one-sided constitutionalist that forbid the use of any
acute remedies under any conditions. They would rather let their patients
take antibiotics and other drugs than give one of those "no good acute
remedies". They somehow think that all acute remedies will suppress the
symptoms or disrupt the treatment while antibiotics and drugs will not. I
can not for the life of me understand this logic??? After all we learned
from Hahnemann about drug suppression - drugs are supposed to be na better
option in a crisis than homoeopathic remedies??? This is done by persons
who think they do only the best homoeopathy. One can image what Hahnemann
would say about this half-homeopathic approach!
Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little