Minutus

The LOTR thread (and we can leave Frodo out of this thread if folks prefer
) made me realize I would like to have a better understanding of how to
prescribe for someone who is suffering side-effects from a drug they are
taking.

If the drug is non-essential, you would first have the person stop taking
it, see what happens, and if necessary treat the picture that stabilizes out
afterwards.

If the drug is essential and you *can't* take them off of it, do you treat
on the basis of the full presenting picture, giving equal emphasis to
symptoms caused by the drug (whether common or uncommon) and whatever
long-term symptoms and qualities that belong "to the patient", or would you
give lower priority to symptoms that are simple toxicity, and commonly
caused by the drug? (If all symptoms are weighted equally, then one can
easily prescribe without knowing much about the drug that's being taken; but
if not, then one would need to know the drug picture in order to understand
which symptoms should not be given much weight.)

If you're treating to simply help a person tolerate a drug that they have to
stay on (i.e., to moderate the side-effects), will/might that also be
helping them toward *possibly* being able to stop it in the future, or is
this approach purely palliative?

Thanks!
Shannon

If someone is having side effects from a drug then whether it is deemed
essential or not, you can only really stop those drugs immediately IF they
haven't been taking them for too long. If it is a very short time then the
sooner they come off them the better but if they have been taking them for a
long time you must reduce the dose slowly.

In this latter instance I wouldn't wait until they are off the drugs to take
the case as very often a clear enough sx picture will come through, enough
to find the simillimum. But sometimes the only reliable information you can
gather is a few modalities.

In these sort of cases it is even more important to check with the person to
what extent the drugs have modified their condition. For example, if the
client says their arthritis pains are better for cool bathing, you need to
know if that was the case before the drugs were taken - if so it is a useful
sx to work with.

When clients list the drugs they are on you need to have as much knowledge
about the possible side effects so that these can be ruled out of the case.
If you think there is a symptom you believe might be a side effect but can
find no reference to it, again, find out how long this has been happening
and give due importance or marginality.

If the case is totality dominated by the effects of the drug - although you
will still have possible causative factors to the case + any pre drug sx
that the client can remember - you might need to deal with the toxic effects
first. It really depends on how each individual is tolerating the drugs.

Your last question is a bit vague - are you referring to terminally ill
people who are suffering from their medication? If so, then the best
possible palliative approach should be chosen but there are cases which
become hopeful and then non terminal once drugs have been stopped. You just
never know in these instances.

Hope useful, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 27/9/04 3:08 pm, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

The LOTR thread (and we can leave Frodo out of this thread if folks prefer
) made me realize I would like to have a better understanding of how to
prescribe for someone who is suffering side-effects from a drug they are
taking.

If the drug is non-essential, you would first have the person stop taking
it, see what happens, and if necessary treat the picture that stabilizes out
afterwards.

If the drug is essential and you *can't* take them off of it, do you treat
on the basis of the full presenting picture, giving equal emphasis to
symptoms caused by the drug (whether common or uncommon) and whatever
long-term symptoms and qualities that belong "to the patient", or would you
give lower priority to symptoms that are simple toxicity, and commonly
caused by the drug? (If all symptoms are weighted equally, then one can
easily prescribe without knowing much about the drug that's being taken; but
if not, then one would need to know the drug picture in order to understand
which symptoms should not be given much weight.)

If you're treating to simply help a person tolerate a drug that they have to
stay on (i.e., to moderate the side-effects), will/might that also be
helping them toward *possibly* being able to stop it in the future, or is
this approach purely palliative?

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

Dealing with patients' use of allopathic drugs is a topic well worth exploring. It's extremely complex.

To address Shannon's excellent initial question about treating allopathic side effects palliatively, what I've seen is that often being able to help get rid of side effects somehow clarifies for the patient the fact that the medicine isn't really healing them at any deep level, and they become highly motivated to quit using it. I don't know the mechanism for that. I suspect that even the palliative homeopathic treatment is healing at a deeper level and enabling an increase in clarity, and they begin to see more clearly both that healing is possible and that the medication is not producing it. They're also impressed that the homeopathic remedies can help them feel better, and begin to think that perhaps remedies can do a better job than the meds regarding the original complaint. The Vital Force is strongly driven to find a healthy balance.

Most of the time, even with the patient still taking the drugs, homeopathic remedies are helpful. However, the process of cure will be much, much slower than it would have been if the drugs had never been used, and a variety of different remedies will be needed as the remedies you use continue to clarify the total underlying picture of the patient. Also, the healing path will twist and turn. It can get very confusing. I've seen patients ultimately decide that they feel fine and don't want ever to give up their medications, or even taper them off ever so slightly (generally, these have been people unwilling to move through emotional issues as part of the healing process, people who perceive the allopathic drugs as barriers against having to deal with their emotions.) I've seen others whom the remedy enabled to go off powerful drugs, leaving the field open for a well chosen remedy to act curatively on the underlying condition. Often when patients decide to give up really powerful drugs (e.g. those for mental illnesses), the mental illness resolves amazingly well with the homeopathic remedy while the patient undergoes a series of dramatic, even violent physical returns of old symptoms -- episodes of bronchitis, intermittent fevers, and the like -- big miasmatic stuff. It's important to be prepared almost for anything, and to be ready to prescribe for a changing panoply of difficult physical symptoms. Healing from serious, life threatening, deeply ingrained, allopathically treated complex illness is an incredibly long, challenging process.

Allopathic drugs taken over a lifetime also seem to impact homeopathic treatment both through creating new disease states with their own symptoms and by suppressing the real picture. We are seeing not the patient's natural state but the natural state intertwined with the medicinal states. In the US, at least, we are dealing with this sort of situation with virtually all of our urban or suburban adult patients. The resulting picture is hazy, remedy choices are really unclear, and one has to be willing to prescribe something that sort ofr fits and wait to see what happens. This experience is so different from the immediate joy that happens so directly with children and with adults from non-urbanized societies, where the remedy picture is clear, and the patient responds immediately and directly.

I find it fascinating that over time, in such cases, prescribing on what seems to be the picture at various times, one eventually is able, almost always, to help patients return to a natural state, and at some point -- maybe after 7 or 10 follow-ups, suddenly a strong, clear remedy picture has emerged, and THAT remedy will support the patient's healing process at a deep level. The labyrynthine process of getting there can be tedious and disouraging for both the patient and the homeopath, but I've learned that if we persevere, we do finally find the natural remedy state, once the drug pictures have been peeled off. And I've learned to educate my patients about the time this will take and what to expect in the interim. When they join in the evaluation of results, with educated awareness, they become very helpful in detecting clues such as returns of old symptoms, and are able to share my glee at seeing these, instead of becoming frightened and going off for surgery or some equally drastic medical purgation.

In my practice, situated in the midst of a very highly educated urban population (with the Berkeley campus of University of California the major employer in town, Berkeley has some interesting distinctions -- highest percentage of PhDs and Nobel prize winners of any town in the country, highest education level of the population, mostly a relatively high socio-economic status -- and, for most of these people, also a very high level of medical treatment), most adult patients fall into this allopathically medicated category, many -- those with serious medical diseases -- to an extreme extent. A large percentage of my patients come because they've tried every possible medical intervention, and have had to concede defeat or have not been able to tolerate the side effects. So I've become well acquainted with the process of treating homeopathically through allopathic drugs. It's been fascinating to see that there really is a predictable path, that this process usually works much better than it seems to do at first, and that I can have faith and teach the patients faith that once we've felt our way through the initial clearing off process, the needed remedy will become apparent and will work clearly.

Obviously, then, I agree with Joy that it makes sense to start homeopathic treatment even while patients are still using allopathic meds. I would also add to Joy's comments about knowing the usual side effects of medical treatments (which may be what the patient needs treated immediately) that knowing the total list of meds they are on gives one a good outline of the underlying natural case. Some patients can provide some details of the symptoms before they started each medication, and those will be an important part of the overall case. If one doesn't get that list of medications, it's very easy to miss a crucial component of the totality, which the patient doesn't mention because the medication s/he's taking eliminates the symptoms successfully, for the moment.

In any case, treating through allopathic meds is a fact of life for many modern homeopaths in post-industrial countries -- it's a topic that deserves much more attention and research than has heretofore happened.

Rosemary

If drug is not essential ,it is very simple ,taper out the drug slowly ,then take up case with availble totality and prescribe.
In some cases eventhough drug is not essential still pt is not ready to stop,
in some cases drug is essential ,then symptoms presented are of patients own +drug symptoms.I usually ask for the symptoms before starting the drug and prescribe to only those symptoms.Invariably I find person slowly improves and comes to sage where he willbe able to with draw the drug safely
Some times drugs being used become obstcle to homoeopathic medicines.In above situation initialy I prescribe same drug in potentised form(tautopathy) for some time and take case once again and prescribe to available totality.
It typically happens with Insulin dependent diabetics .Insulin in potency removes crude insulin symptoms and clears for better remedy.
Some of Diabetics who develop Resistance to insulin as a complication,Insulin in potency helps to overcome the resistsance and start responding.

I hope this helps
Ramachandra,
Hyderabad ,INDIA
Bob&Shannon wrote:
The LOTR thread (and we can leave Frodo out of this thread if folks prefer
) made me realize I would like to have a better understanding of how to
prescribe for someone who is suffering side-effects from a drug they are
taking.

If the drug is non-essential, you would first have the person stop taking
it, see what happens, and if necessary treat the picture that stabilizes out
afterwards.

If the drug is essential and you *can't* take them off of it, do you treat
on the basis of the full presenting picture, giving equal emphasis to
symptoms caused by the drug (whether common or uncommon) and whatever
long-term symptoms and qualities that belong "to the patient", or would you
give lower priority to symptoms that are simple toxicity, and commonly
caused by the drug? (If all symptoms are weighted equally, then one can
easily prescribe without knowing much about the drug that's being taken; but
if not, then one would need to know the drug picture in order to understand
which symptoms should not be given much weight.)

If you're treating to simply help a person tolerate a drug that they have to
stay on (i.e., to moderate the side-effects), will/might that also be
helping them toward *possibly* being able to stop it in the future, or is
this approach purely palliative?

Thanks!
Shannon
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

The effects of drugs is where I bring in a Vannier system so that you can
give a drainage for what is drug damage as well as the constitutional BUT
give the constitutional after a certain amount of time, i.e. to clear drug
pathways of toxicity.

Thanks Liz,

So your approach would be similar to Joy's in that you'd choose the
"constitutional" remedy based on those symptoms that were there *before* the
drug was begun?

Shannon
on 9/27/04 2:34 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Yes but with Vannier you can't use it the constitutional until you clear
toxicity.It is a good system, as it also allows you to use a miasmic remedy
to do the same thing, as well as prescribing for a lesional remedy for the
actual disease state that a person is taking the existing drug for, and it
works WITH the existing drugs.