Patient and their Disease 1. G.H.G. Jahr -Venkat 1
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:37 pm
At 09:20 AM 6/5/2004 +0100, you wrote:
Daar Venkat et al,
Yes, I agree in general...but..this also need clarification. A person
may be an owner of the body and mind but a patient is an individual who is
sick by definition. A healthy person is not a patient. The illness of a
patient and their disease is a unified experience. No disease - no patient.
Once the patient is cured they are no longer patients and no longer have a
disease. Then they are a healthy person.
In aphorism 11 Hahnemann wrote that diseases is "initially" a
mistunement of the vital force. That means disease starts as a dynamic
functional complaint and then progresses to gross organic pathology. In
aphorism 15 he states the vital force and physical organism are one in the
same. We only separate them for ease of comprehension. So the dynamis
involves both vital energy and organic systems. They are two sides of the
same coin. It is the patient that is sick.
The concept of constitution relates to a whole functioning organism in
both health and disease. The pathognomic symptoms related to the disease
state and the constitutional concomitants are general symptoms that are
expressions of the whole patient during illness. These two are
complementary expressions of a greater unfed experience.
No one is saying that disease is synonymous with a human being. This is
your misunderstanding of the terms used. A man or woman is much more than a
state of relative health or disease. The word patient is comes from the
Latin, Patientia-pati, to bear. As a noun it is defined as: "One who bears
or suffers; a person under medical or surgical treatment; a physicians
client". We are not speaking of a person in a state of health when we use
the term "patient". We are speaking exclusively of ill persons under
medical treatment. The disease symptoms and ill patients are synonymous by
definition. If they are not sick they do not need treatment and are not
patients.
During a strong acute crisis the chronic symptoms will be suspended
as long as the acute run its course (Organon, aph. 36). This does not mean
that there will be no constitutional concomitants. In fact, there are often
very sharply defined constitutional concomitants present during acute
diseases. They are often very distinct and rare for the patient under
normal circumstances. The more rare and different from the normal symptoms
the more characteristic they become. We see such things all the time in the
clinic.
In Jahr's terminology there are pathognomic symptoms related to the
disease state and the constitutional concomitants in general that relate to
the whole patient. This can seen in both acute diseases and chronic
disease. During the flu the stronger acute disease represses the chronic
symptoms until it has run its course or is cured. That patient suffers from
the symptoms common to the flu and its pathology as well as their own
personal concomitant general symptoms. The constitutional concomitants will
still be an expression of the patient's predispositions and sensibilities
but here they focus on how the patient react to the flu. After this
underlying chronic symptoms that are related to the susceptibility to such
acute crisis will surface calling for chronic treatment. This is were the
acute-chronic relationships of remedies comes to the foreground. This is a
very excellent time to treat patients because all the layers line up for
treatment.
I did not say that human beings and disease are one. This is where
you are missing the point. A healthy man or woman is not a "patient". When
a man or woman is sick - they are patients with symptoms. The implications
of my statement are that ill patients and the disease they suffer are a
unified experience. Disease is not synonymous with human beings but disease
is synonymous with patients because they are ill by definition. No disease
- no patient. No patient (meaning a healthy person) - no disease.
The totality of the symptoms has two aspects, i.e. the pathognomic
symptoms of the disease and the constitutional concomitants of the patient.
Such things are helpful in the judging the characteristic value of symptoms
and understanding the difference between the common and characteristic
symptoms of the disease and the general concomitants related to the
constitution of the patient.
I see no conflict in any of this. I only is complementary ideas.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Daar Venkat et al,
Yes, I agree in general...but..this also need clarification. A person
may be an owner of the body and mind but a patient is an individual who is
sick by definition. A healthy person is not a patient. The illness of a
patient and their disease is a unified experience. No disease - no patient.
Once the patient is cured they are no longer patients and no longer have a
disease. Then they are a healthy person.
In aphorism 11 Hahnemann wrote that diseases is "initially" a
mistunement of the vital force. That means disease starts as a dynamic
functional complaint and then progresses to gross organic pathology. In
aphorism 15 he states the vital force and physical organism are one in the
same. We only separate them for ease of comprehension. So the dynamis
involves both vital energy and organic systems. They are two sides of the
same coin. It is the patient that is sick.
The concept of constitution relates to a whole functioning organism in
both health and disease. The pathognomic symptoms related to the disease
state and the constitutional concomitants are general symptoms that are
expressions of the whole patient during illness. These two are
complementary expressions of a greater unfed experience.
No one is saying that disease is synonymous with a human being. This is
your misunderstanding of the terms used. A man or woman is much more than a
state of relative health or disease. The word patient is comes from the
Latin, Patientia-pati, to bear. As a noun it is defined as: "One who bears
or suffers; a person under medical or surgical treatment; a physicians
client". We are not speaking of a person in a state of health when we use
the term "patient". We are speaking exclusively of ill persons under
medical treatment. The disease symptoms and ill patients are synonymous by
definition. If they are not sick they do not need treatment and are not
patients.
During a strong acute crisis the chronic symptoms will be suspended
as long as the acute run its course (Organon, aph. 36). This does not mean
that there will be no constitutional concomitants. In fact, there are often
very sharply defined constitutional concomitants present during acute
diseases. They are often very distinct and rare for the patient under
normal circumstances. The more rare and different from the normal symptoms
the more characteristic they become. We see such things all the time in the
clinic.
In Jahr's terminology there are pathognomic symptoms related to the
disease state and the constitutional concomitants in general that relate to
the whole patient. This can seen in both acute diseases and chronic
disease. During the flu the stronger acute disease represses the chronic
symptoms until it has run its course or is cured. That patient suffers from
the symptoms common to the flu and its pathology as well as their own
personal concomitant general symptoms. The constitutional concomitants will
still be an expression of the patient's predispositions and sensibilities
but here they focus on how the patient react to the flu. After this
underlying chronic symptoms that are related to the susceptibility to such
acute crisis will surface calling for chronic treatment. This is were the
acute-chronic relationships of remedies comes to the foreground. This is a
very excellent time to treat patients because all the layers line up for
treatment.
I did not say that human beings and disease are one. This is where
you are missing the point. A healthy man or woman is not a "patient". When
a man or woman is sick - they are patients with symptoms. The implications
of my statement are that ill patients and the disease they suffer are a
unified experience. Disease is not synonymous with human beings but disease
is synonymous with patients because they are ill by definition. No disease
- no patient. No patient (meaning a healthy person) - no disease.
The totality of the symptoms has two aspects, i.e. the pathognomic
symptoms of the disease and the constitutional concomitants of the patient.
Such things are helpful in the judging the characteristic value of symptoms
and understanding the difference between the common and characteristic
symptoms of the disease and the general concomitants related to the
constitution of the patient.
I see no conflict in any of this. I only is complementary ideas.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000