SIMILIMUM
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:11 pm
Dear Toni
You have not answered any of my questions.
It may be useful if for the sake of better understanding you presented your
workings.
Rgds
Soroush
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:02:59 -0000
From: "Finrod"
Subject: SIMILIMUM (was Obsessive compulsive disorder)
Dear Toni
In addition to Shannon's comments, I should be extremely grateful if you
would kindly explain how from the patient's presenting symptoms and the case
you take, you can decide that the patient is suffering from two ACTIVE
diseases at the same time, how each of these diseases has its own set
symptoms (ie how do you allocate a symptom to each disease) and how you
would repertorise them separately.
Please also explain how your statement compares on Aphs 34-45 inclusive and
274 of the Organon. See foot notes of aph 40 too. Did the old boy get it
wrong?
Soroush
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:22:54 -0000
From: "dusty1197"
Subject: Re: Obsessive compulsive disorder
Joy, Shannon, Soroush,
I'll answer as best I can in one condensed email. First, I don't go
into any case with the intention of using more than one remedy at a
time. Like each of you, I want to find the simillimum. It provides
better control over the case and, as Joy pointed out, it makes it
easier for the practitioner to know what the remedy is doing and how
the client is responding to it.
If a client with a multiple MI diagnosis describes to me that s/he
is particularly bothered by one subset of symptoms (usually it
belongs to one of the disorders with which the person has been
diagnosed), then I will begin by addressing only that by using the
remedy which is most similar. But there are times when a client
exhibits distinct states, each equally disruptive to his/her ability
to function, that differ from one another. Let's just say that the
sense-perceptible alterations of his/her condition assert themselves
differently at various times and one remedy is simply not suitable
to all of them.
Let's consider how important it is to get a diagnosis of a physical
malady. It provides information on which organs/systems/tissues are
affected, how they are affected, what is required to restabilize or
repair, etc. The same applies to mental illnesses. Each has a
pathological picture, many involve changes in brain chemistry, and
with enough study and exposure to their presentations, one becomes
familiar with the subsets of symptoms that each generates. A
practitioner, for instance, would not confuse the symptoms of
diabetes with those of MS any more than a practitioner should
confuse the symptoms of OCD with bipolar disorder. Knowing what I'm
seeing and understanding the source of what I'm observing is
paramount to recognizing and distinguishing between the various
disorders in a complex diagnosis.
As far as limiting the complexity of the living organism to one
state at a time, I realize that we can go around and around
endlessly and in the final analysis still not agree. Isn't the
human psyche complex enough to support more than one state at a
time? Or are we more likened to rocks?
Here's another example: I had a case of a middle-age woman whom I
saw in her home because she was intensely agoraphobic. She was
absolutely terrified of going out alone and always suffered an acute
panic attack if she tried. Since there was no one to bring her to
see me, I went to see her. Aside from the obvious impairment of the
anxiety disorder, she was married to an unreasonable man and always
felt frustrated. Her primary physical complaint was recurring
bladder infections that were aggravated by intercourse as well
intense urging to urinate after intercourse.
I rxd both Ars and Staph. This was a woman who clearly demonstrated
two distinct states: One of intense fear along with its subset of
symptoms; the other of suppressed anger and its subset of symptoms.
It matters not to me whether interpretations of certain aphorisms
are in conflict with one another. My client needed more than one
remedy, and that's what she got.
Toni
P.S. She progressed very nicely, suffering only minor aggravations.
She reached the point where she was able to express to her husband
when she was too tired to engage in intercourse, rather than
submitting to his every desire. Slowly, over *many* months, with a
gradual increase in potency, she was able to step through her
doorway, then walk to her mailbox, then sit in her car, then back to
the end of the driveway, etc. until she regained her life. Now,
should I have done things differently simply because of the
assertion that she suffered with one dis-ease and not two, or
because there are aphorisms that are subject to interpretation, one
of which might contradict my method? Not a chance!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You have not answered any of my questions.
It may be useful if for the sake of better understanding you presented your
workings.
Rgds
Soroush
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:02:59 -0000
From: "Finrod"
Subject: SIMILIMUM (was Obsessive compulsive disorder)
Dear Toni
In addition to Shannon's comments, I should be extremely grateful if you
would kindly explain how from the patient's presenting symptoms and the case
you take, you can decide that the patient is suffering from two ACTIVE
diseases at the same time, how each of these diseases has its own set
symptoms (ie how do you allocate a symptom to each disease) and how you
would repertorise them separately.
Please also explain how your statement compares on Aphs 34-45 inclusive and
274 of the Organon. See foot notes of aph 40 too. Did the old boy get it
wrong?
Soroush
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:22:54 -0000
From: "dusty1197"
Subject: Re: Obsessive compulsive disorder
Joy, Shannon, Soroush,
I'll answer as best I can in one condensed email. First, I don't go
into any case with the intention of using more than one remedy at a
time. Like each of you, I want to find the simillimum. It provides
better control over the case and, as Joy pointed out, it makes it
easier for the practitioner to know what the remedy is doing and how
the client is responding to it.
If a client with a multiple MI diagnosis describes to me that s/he
is particularly bothered by one subset of symptoms (usually it
belongs to one of the disorders with which the person has been
diagnosed), then I will begin by addressing only that by using the
remedy which is most similar. But there are times when a client
exhibits distinct states, each equally disruptive to his/her ability
to function, that differ from one another. Let's just say that the
sense-perceptible alterations of his/her condition assert themselves
differently at various times and one remedy is simply not suitable
to all of them.
Let's consider how important it is to get a diagnosis of a physical
malady. It provides information on which organs/systems/tissues are
affected, how they are affected, what is required to restabilize or
repair, etc. The same applies to mental illnesses. Each has a
pathological picture, many involve changes in brain chemistry, and
with enough study and exposure to their presentations, one becomes
familiar with the subsets of symptoms that each generates. A
practitioner, for instance, would not confuse the symptoms of
diabetes with those of MS any more than a practitioner should
confuse the symptoms of OCD with bipolar disorder. Knowing what I'm
seeing and understanding the source of what I'm observing is
paramount to recognizing and distinguishing between the various
disorders in a complex diagnosis.
As far as limiting the complexity of the living organism to one
state at a time, I realize that we can go around and around
endlessly and in the final analysis still not agree. Isn't the
human psyche complex enough to support more than one state at a
time? Or are we more likened to rocks?
Here's another example: I had a case of a middle-age woman whom I
saw in her home because she was intensely agoraphobic. She was
absolutely terrified of going out alone and always suffered an acute
panic attack if she tried. Since there was no one to bring her to
see me, I went to see her. Aside from the obvious impairment of the
anxiety disorder, she was married to an unreasonable man and always
felt frustrated. Her primary physical complaint was recurring
bladder infections that were aggravated by intercourse as well
intense urging to urinate after intercourse.
I rxd both Ars and Staph. This was a woman who clearly demonstrated
two distinct states: One of intense fear along with its subset of
symptoms; the other of suppressed anger and its subset of symptoms.
It matters not to me whether interpretations of certain aphorisms
are in conflict with one another. My client needed more than one
remedy, and that's what she got.
Toni
P.S. She progressed very nicely, suffering only minor aggravations.
She reached the point where she was able to express to her husband
when she was too tired to engage in intercourse, rather than
submitting to his every desire. Slowly, over *many* months, with a
gradual increase in potency, she was able to step through her
doorway, then walk to her mailbox, then sit in her car, then back to
the end of the driveway, etc. until she regained her life. Now,
should I have done things differently simply because of the
assertion that she suffered with one dis-ease and not two, or
because there are aphorisms that are subject to interpretation, one
of which might contradict my method? Not a chance!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]