Minutus

Over the griefs felt by those in chaos,fear,and loss of any security
they ever had. I have several times prescribed Carcinosum when the
sympathy and involvement is damaging to person involved.
Perhaps other remedies ?? Phosphorus, Causticum but the several times I
have prescribed I have used Carcinosum.
I think we all have to try to create good energy around us, Jean

I am curious why you see the need to prescribe for sadness. Is it because the individuals experience of sadness was overwhelming them and causing specific a disruption to their lives and health? Grief and sadness would seem to be perfectly normal and appropriate responses to certain events, and they certainly vary greatly for each individual. Hindsight is so good - we can many times attribute shock or grief to the initiation of symptoms of a health problem, but I am uncomfortable delineating during an event when it is normal and when it is potentially 'damaging'. I can certainly see offering empathy or sympathy, but would be very reluctant to pull out the carcinosim, phosphorus or causticum for sadness. Perhaps you could elaborate on the indications you would use to judge the degree of damage.

D C Rona

many people I meet need only to share their concern. The several times
I prescribed there were physical problems and the state of involvement
and sympathy were I thought contributing to them.
One years ago worked with a Care organization and had allergies. Another
had become depressed and was not eating.
I take your point ,Jean

Why not prescribe for sadness - it has to be one of the uppermost emotions
of the modern world (along with anger) and one of the most often suppressed
emotions leading to so many problems.

One should prescribe on any emotion that becomes inappropriate to health
whether on an acute level of chronic.

Probably why the rubric 'sadness' contains SO many remedies - why is that?

But the triad Carc - Phos - Caust are just 3 very important rx amongst many,
but are certainly 3 that are easily overwhelmed by this emotion and
represent chaos - fear - loss.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com

Joy,
I'm not sure I understand the time frame in your answer. Certainly if sadness is suppressed or experienced to a level sufficient to cause physical problems then it is an important part of the totality of the case. But do you prescribe when an individual comes in 'sad' over a particular situation? or 'angry' over a particular situation? It would seem that you would want them to express their sadness and find their own way to resolve (time, religion, perhaps therapy) rather than consider a homeopathic remedy. Or are you speaking of a known client with a known pre-disposition (constitution) that you try to help deal with a crisis?

The original context of this discussion was an off-shoot of the political discussion that had gone on last week. It seemed to be a more general theme of reactions to 'events'. It has evolved to be more of a discussion of 'treatment' of an emotional expression. Your statement was that " One should prescribe on any emotion that becomes inappropriate to health whether on an acute level of chronic". This may be simply a matter of word choices - but it sounds like you are advocating prescribing on the basis of interpretation of a current emotionional state, where 'appropriate' level or expression is determined by the prescriber, and physical effect has yet to happen. I may be misinterpreting since it seems we would normally prescribe on the the totality of the picture before us, which would include the physical and emotional state, as well as history as opposed to 'prescribing on the emotion'.

I greatly appreciate your insights, and wish to understand how homeopaths from various training and experience deal with this concept.
D C Rona

Simply - when sadness predominates in a case and has not been resolved and
is not being allowed a free flow to conclusion and thus has caused
pathology. Sometimes the sadness has been suppressed, sometimes it is still
in evidence - either way the client will indicate this one way or another
and shouldn't be due to the interpretation of the prescriber, just an
understanding of it.

Same with any emotion that has not been allowed to flow in an appropriate
manner.

This can have a sudden impact and develop into an acute case such as
Cocculus for example or last for years into a chronic state such as Nat mur.

Maybe we can even inherit sadness, perhaps there is a 'sadness' gene but it
certainly is a broad spectrum emotion but one which seems to be so easily
suppressed.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 9/11/04 1:16, Donna Rona at rona@consultant.com wrote:

Joy,
I'm not sure I understand the time frame in your answer. Certainly if
sadness is suppressed or experienced to a level sufficient to cause physical
problems then it is an important part of the totality of the case. But do
you prescribe when an individual comes in 'sad' over a particular situation?
or 'angry' over a particular situation? It would seem that you would want
them to express their sadness and find their own way to resolve (time,
religion, perhaps therapy) rather than consider a homeopathic remedy. Or
are you speaking of a known client with a known pre-disposition
(constitution) that you try to help deal with a crisis?

The original context of this discussion was an off-shoot of the political
discussion that had gone on last week. It seemed to be a more general theme
of reactions to 'events'. It has evolved to be more of a discussion of
'treatment' of an emotional expression. Your statement was that " One
should prescribe on any emotion that becomes inappropriate to health whether
on an acute level of chronic". This may be simply a matter of word choices
- but it sounds like you are advocating prescribing on the basis of
interpretation of a current emotionional state, where 'appropriate' level
or expression is determined by the prescriber, and physical effect has yet
to happen. I may be misinterpreting since it seems we would normally
prescribe on the the totality of the picture before us, which would include
the physical and emotional state, as well as history as opposed to
'prescribing on the emotion'.

I greatly appreciate your insights, and wish to understand how homeopaths
from various training and experience deal with this concept.
D C Rona
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Joy,

I'm still perplexed ... I was of the understanding that taking something
like sadness into account (if it is presenting) is understandable within the
totality, but it would not be an eliminating rubric, as it is 'too large' an
emotion; too emcompassing. I wouldn't use 'irritability' for the same
reasons and because, like 'sadness', it is part of the human condition
surely?

Another point you make below - see ***

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
resolved and
is still

***How will the client indicate it clearly enough not to be 'interpreted'
by the prescriber? Are you saying the prescriber has to 'feel' (or see) that
sadness whilst the px is talking, rather than assuming sadness from what
they say? [I'm not sure if I've grasped what you're meaning.].
appropriate

***Do you really use such large rubrics as Anger, Irritability, Anxiety -
or their sub-rubrics if you can find one (or Ailments From) ? So if
someone comes in with a 'sadness' about Bush being elected again - how
would you represent that ? I'm thoroughly intrigued, as I would, like
Donna, like to understand more.
mur.
but it
easily

Best wishes, Barbara

physical
do
situation?
want
Or
theme
whether
choices
yet
normally
include
homeopaths

I'm British. Not new school British but old school. I'm also a
homeopath. Not an easy combination. Consequently I am very aware how
society can indoctrinate the conviction that expression of emotion is
unhealthy.

remember Princess Di's death.? The british had their first excuse, and
permission for, a public expression of collective suppressed emotion.
Never seen anything like it in all me years (said in a mock cockney
accent ). The first real collective expression of emotion from the
British that I'd ever seen.

Spontaneous expression of emotion is generally extremely healthy, and
suppression of emotions ( as we all know) is unhealthy. - So if I
encounter a patient suffering from say, grief at a recent bereavement,
then I would not prescribe for it unless there was some other reason to
do so, (and I don't mean social convention). In fact I would encourage
them to feel it 100%. Same with the other emotions. Emotional
suppression is second nature to us. That's got to be counteracted

When I would prescribe is when someone gets stuck. Getting stuck is
usually from either not having experienced the emotion 100%, or from
not recognising the reality of the problem.

A rather short reply, and probably open to misinterpretation for that,
but in a bit of a hurry

SK

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

I work from a point of view that a diseased state is present only because of
an inability to adapt to any given circumstance and so what ever dominates a
case cannot be ignored just because the relevant rubric is too large. Many
many rubrics are large but I am always prepared to use them and I can't
think of any good reason not to.

All emotions are part of the human condition - anger, jealousy, sadness,
happiness. They can all go into overdrive and become inappropriate to
health, the balance and harmony is lost. If a client presents with sx of
weeping and sadness, they cry everyday, hard to stop, weep during
consultation, talk all the time of their sadness etc, you can't ignore this
and expect them to live through it because it is part of the human condition
- it is a guiding sx of their inability to adapt to something in their
lives. As Simon says, they become stuck.

This is an example of an easy case, the sx being on the surface and you
don't have to ease them out but it is the same with any emotion. Say, for
example a man comes with kidney problems and difficulty sleeping and when
asked about his interaction with others, relationships partners etc, it
transpires he is full of jealousy, suspicion and rage - all quite big
rubrics, all part of the human condition but extremely inappropriate to
health in this instance and thus very much part of the case so they have to
be used and Hyos is prescribed correctly instead of Equisetum.

The client will always indicate what needs to be cured with careful case
taking. If they do not volunteer information easily then you have to ask
questions that will allow this information to come through so that there is
no reason to interpret. You cannot assume anything. If in doubt then ask
about it, follow all sx through until you have a sound basis for
understanding what the case is.

To take your example of 'someone presents with sadness about Bush being
elected again' - this could either be an acute reaction, sudden, unable to
deal with the implications etc (people have committed suicide already and
you can't get more profound than that), or it could indicate a sudden
reaction that actually hinges on a more chronic condition. You just take the
whole case as you would any other case, asking "why" this effects them so
much is a good enough place to begin - the reasons, i.e. the pointers to the
real rubrics to use, could be endless but still dominated by the expression
of sadness, the leading state/rubric, which is the prime area of
susceptibility. In other people it might be anger, indifference or whatever.

Rather than dismiss I would encourage all to study the really large rubrics
and assess how the remedies contained within are ranked accordingly.

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 9/11/04 10:24, d_barbara_hamilton at d_barbara_hamilton@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Hi Joy,

I'm still perplexed ... I was of the understanding that taking something
like sadness into account (if it is presenting) is understandable within the
totality, but it would not be an eliminating rubric, as it is 'too large' an
emotion; too emcompassing. I wouldn't use 'irritability' for the same
reasons and because, like 'sadness', it is part of the human condition
surely?

Another point you make below - see ***

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
resolved and
is still

***How will the client indicate it clearly enough not to be 'interpreted'
by the prescriber? Are you saying the prescriber has to 'feel' (or see)
that
sadness whilst the px is talking, rather than assuming sadness from what
they say? [I'm not sure if I've grasped what you're meaning.].

appropriate

***Do you really use such large rubrics as Anger, Irritability, Anxiety -
or their sub-rubrics if you can find one (or Ailments From) ? So if
someone comes in with a 'sadness' about Bush being elected again - how
would you represent that ? I'm thoroughly intrigued, as I would, like
Donna, like to understand more.

mur.
but it
easily

Best wishes, Barbara
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Joy,

I haven't had time to reply of late, but a belated thank you for your
response below. I guess we do roughly the same, except I always use
sub-rubrics of more general human emotions IF one is available,
otherwise, like you, I will use the larger if it is within the presenting
complaint, or alternatively I will just bear it in mind for the totality.

For instance, in the example you give, I feel it is imperative if the person
is 'Jealous', to uncover whether it is a trait that comes through from
childhood, or whether it is a one-off situational reaction. In other words,
the 'exciting cause' and whether a pattern can be established from the
time-line.

I tend to find that themes and patterns in speech are more important than
the human emotions we all share: in other words, the 'imagery'. One px
talked of feeling like a 'sitting duck' throughout the consulation. Her
remedy was Stramonium. (I have found time and time again that
particular imagery with Stram. - of danger from sniper fire/being
targetted.) However, I know we all work differently and we all have to
find a method that works for us, and most importantly, our px.

All the best, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
because of
dominates a
Many
condition
for
when
to
is
ask
being
and
the
them so
the
expression
whatever.
rubrics
the
it
another
what
how
Nat