Minutus

During the discussion on Constitutioan treatment / prophylaxis, of course
'constitutional' remedy has been mentioned.

I remember attending the Society of Homeopaths conference a couple of years
back and one of the subjects of a side discussion group was the terminology
of Homeopathy.

One of the terms brought up for discussion was 'constitutional remedy' and
how it may mean different things to different people at different times.

So that we are not confused in our thinking perhaps any ideas on this issue
irrespecvtive of whether it was Hn or Kent or whoever who thought it or
mentioned it first should be brought up to the fore.

My idea of the constitutional remedy is in fact the Similimum for the
patient at any given time.

I would very much appraciate input from all quarters.

Regards
Soroush

> My idea of the constitutional remedy is in fact the Similimum for the

This issue should be put in the context of history of medical concepts. The
idea of constitution is present in the first serious theory of medicine,
namely ayurveda. it is regarded as the innate mixture of humours [fire, air,
water]. In greek medical thinking it was the 4 well-known temperaments. In
these terms constitution is the relatively fixed nature of the individual in
pre-disease state, although it simultaneously implies the predispositon to
getting out of balance and hence getting ill.

Kent discusses constitution only with a view to refuting it as a method of
homeopathic diagnosis. It seems that even in his day some may have starting
drifting towards this analysis, which appears nowhere in Hn.

The first mention of the word 'constitution' in a non-pejorative sense in
homeopathic analysis, acording to my reading, appears in Caroll Dunham's
materia medica. If you spent much time reading Catherine Coulter and Ananda
Zaren you would be forgiven for thinking that constitutional treatment is
the core of homeopathy, but it is an abberation of the original thinking.
It's false to say homeopathy treats only the individual and not the disease.
It treats the disease state as it manifests in the individual.
"Constitution" appears nowhere in Hn, whereas "disease" appears throughout
his work. What has happened is a serious infiltration of a
pseudo-metaphysical way of thinking which replaces the core of homepathic
truth with a speculative outgrowth.

Andrew

Hi all,

Last year I wrote an article with the title 'Is
Homoeopathy a Constitutional Treatment?' It is about
constitution and its position in homoeopathic
casetaking. I hope that it helps. Any comments is
welcome.

http://www.minutus.com/constitution.htm

Best,

Ardavan
--- Phosphor wrote: > > My
idea of the constitutional remedy is in fact

=====
Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way.

____________________________________________________________
Nokia Game is on again.
Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
all media adventure before November 3rd.

I don't think this definition is correct, what about an acute disease?

A constitutional remedy is a remedy what covers the person and his symptoms.
You can prescribe on a layer, that is also a constitutiuonal prescription,
but it covers not the deep personal features.

David Little:A classical homoeopath must study the constitution,
temperament, predispostitions, aetiological constellation and situational
factors, as well as the complete objective signs, coincidental befallments
and subjective symptoms. This data provides the clues necessary to discover
which analysis strategy is most appropriate for finding the correct
simillimum for that very moment. A first aid crisis, an acute disorder, an
acute miasm, and a flare up of a chronic miasm are not approached in the
exact same fashion as a constitutional mistunement, a serious chronic miasm,
suppressions, iatrogenic diseases or degenerative organic pathology.
Hahnemann similarly proposed the constitutional anamnesis for diseases which
affect the individual constitution and the group anamnesis for disorders of
common cause and similar symptoms which affect a homogeneous group. The
method of finding the simillimum, and the case management procedures, must
be tailored to suit the nature of the disease state and well as the signs
and symptoms of the individual or the group. This flexible approach to the
clinical practice is an integral part of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy, but
unfortunately, much of this material has been lost throughout the years or
misrepresent.

The Individual simillimum (The Constitutional Remedy-§153). In disorders of
multiple causation and unique symptom patterns the constitutional remedy
forms the foundation of constitutional treatment and homoeo-prophylaxis.
This remedy is chosen by the inner proximate cause, spiritual and emotional
character, predispositions, the innate constitution, the inherited miasms,
as well as the complete image of the signs, befallments and symptoms. This
is the constitutional specificum.
Piet Guijt

Dear Piet

In an acute situation often one does not prescribe constitutionally - this
is reserved for chronic disease treatment.

Perhaps I did not express myself properly. When I said "My idea of the
constitutional remedy is in fact the Similimum for the
patient at any given time.", I meant during chronic treatment.

The acute 'similimum' is often different to the chronic similimum.
In fact the acute can be a good indicator of the chronic remedy as the two
MUST be related.
The acute being a sign of the dormant miasm!

I trust you have read Dr Shahrdar's effective article on this issue.
http://www.minutus.com/constitution.htm

Regards
Soroush

May I also humbly suggest that you please also study Kent's Lectures on
Homeopathic Philosophy Lecture XXVI paying careful attention to paragraphs
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of this lecture together with aphorisms 38, 100 to 103 of
the Organon.
Kind regards
Ahmed N. Currim

Dear Soroush,

you wrote:
I still don't think your definition is correct.
You're mixing up 'constitutional prescribing' and ' the constitutional
remedy'
Constitutional prescribing refers to selecting the one remedy which covers
the totality of the symptoms (both mental and physical) at a given time,
this in contrast with 'local prescribing'.

A constitutional remedy is one which covers the totality of a person's
mental and physical characteristics over a long period of time, excluding
acute episodes.
I read the article on constitution by Dr Shahrdar's.
I agree you can't rely on characteristics of a person for your prescription,
they can only serve as confirmation at best when your aim is to give the
constitutional remedy in a uncomplicated case.
The constitutional remedy is the cornerstone of Hahnemannian Homeopathy.
Hahnemann has a lot to say about constitution.
I trust you have read David Little's articles on this subject:
http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibr ... rinc5.html

The constitutional remedy is not our only strategy, sometime we have to
prescribe for a miasma, and then we have to give for example a Sulphur
patient, the remedy Thuja. Thuja is an intercurrent remedy here and the
Similimum for the patient at the given time, a 'constitutional prescription'
but not 'the constitutional remedy', which is Sulphur.

Kind regards,

Piet Guijt

Piet Guijt said...
and..
prescription,

i may misunderstand you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you
mean exactly the same thing by "contradiction" in both sentences?
Where?

Andrew

Andrew

If you did read Dr Shahrdar's Article as you said you did, then I cannot see
how you failed to see all the references!!

Soroush

Andrew wrote:

excluding
you
Dear Andrew,

The first sentence is the definition of the constitutional remedy.
The second has to with making a prescription here and now.
To make a good prescription you need to rely on the symptoms which are
connected to the complaints wherefor the patient came to see you.
Sometimes these complaints fit in the picture of the constitutional remedy
and this wil work.
In other cases you need another remedy first, and you can say you treated a
layer, because you know the difference by definition.

kind regards,

Piet Guijt