Minutus

Dear Joy,

If someone brought me a much-loved leg or breast that had been chopped off
dried and preserved and asked me if homeopathy could rejuvenate it, I would
say not, and, in truth, I am sure you would say the same.

What is more interesting is the idea of treating people after death on the
basis that life goes on. I have heard of people giving remedies to corpses
on those grounds. I suppose it is on a par with praying for people in
purgatory; I believe Hindus do pujas for the dead, too, but may be wrong
there. The QXC1 machine is reckoned to be able to identify, and I believe,
rectify karmic disturbances. Even if these things are possible, what price
personal responsibility? It don't seem right to me. And in the case of
homeopaths treating like this, what price informed consent? (In the case of
the shed, too, what price informed consent?)
Not content with being health practitioners it seems some of us see
ourselves as priests (not to mention lifestyle gurus and psychotherapists),
placing ourselves and our judgement and actions at the centre of someone
else's spiritual development. The word hubris springs to mind.

Incidentally the word 'us' is not a euphemism for 'you' and doesn't include
'me' either, except that a lot of what 'we' do touches on these issues and
the subject has come up for me recently in another context.
BW

Theresa

Joy wrote:

So when an organ or part of an organ is threatened in a way
that it ceases to function as it once did it cannot be rejuvenated,
brought back to health? That's quite an indictment against
homeopathy..........Do we know for sure when the vital force ceases to
exist? It seemed to
me that lovely old shed had a lot of life in it,

.............

Do you not treat any animals, babies, children who cannot yet speak,
adults who cannot or will not speak to give their consent? Do your
clients have to sign consent forms? Our main purpose is to do no harm
which begs the question of needing consent as we would hardly be asking
for permission to do damage (although sadly this happens). We are, by
the nature of our profession very much responsible for our clients
health anyway.

As for the chopped off limb, organ or whatever you would have to ask in
what way you would want to rejuvenate it, seems a bit vague but don't
forget the poor shed was being invaded and succumbing to termites so we
have a given situation there that could have been addressed. And if an
organ is still in situ then surely it can be rejuvenated.

We as homeopaths should be the unprejudiced observer and personally
anyone who steps over that mark should be asking themselves why they
need to do that although there are many clients who probably only need
a lifestyle change to become well again and advice along these lines is
often offered I am sure but it also should be from an unprejudiced
point of view.

Are these QXC1 machines used in homeopathy (I don't know these are).
Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Have we forgotten that the termites live their life according to
strict laws of nature? They eat their natural food that is timber.
They have not asked for ice cream ! We have done an unnatural thing
by erecting a shed in their land. Who's at fault ? Are we going to
try and correct a natural phenomena by 'doing something' ? If yes, it
can be 'anything'- including trying a potentised medicine (notice
that I have not used the term homeopathy in this sentence). But , I
should emphasize that the central point is about continuing to
protect that anti natural shed and repelling the naturally
instinctual termites away. This is a need dictated phenomenon which
man was doing since civilisations begun. BUT, tell me where is the
scope for Homeopathy ? (except that Michele queried in a homeopathic
forum)
Best
venkat

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
speak,
harm
asking
by
ask in
don't
so we
an
they
need
lines is
are).
it, I
death
to
people in
be
I
what
case of
the
see
doesn't
rejuvenated,
ceases to

Hi Teresa, Interesting words below:

"Not content with being health practitioners it seems some of us see
ourselves as priests (not to mention lifestyle gurus and
psychotherapists),
placing ourselves and our judgement and actions at the centre of someone
else's spiritual development. The word hubris springs to mind."

This has been on my mind lateley as well - but possibly not in the
same context as yours. But I would like to hear your point of view.

What does "hubris" mean for you? I'm unfimilar with that word.

What is the difference between a priest and an ordinary person or a
health practitioner? (For me all 3 may describe a single person.)

As homeoapths should we not have any concern for the state of a
persons soul? Does that mean then, that homeopathic treatment does not
take into account a persons soul? (HEre I am not refering to religious
prejudice.)

Is another persons spiritual development of no consequence in ones
case taking and analysis? OFten I ahve seen high Spiritual development
to hinder good case taking!

I ask the above questions I"m keen to understand these boundaries,
because it seems to move even towards whether its OK for a homeopath
to give dietary advise without a DIeticians degree, and other similar
situations.
In India - a doctor is expected to have all the answers. If a doctor
tells a patient to trust in God when matters cannot be explained - it
is very highly respected! Whehter one is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or
any religious background for that matter. Something weird about us
Indians?
thanks,
Dr. leela
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "theresa partington" wrote:
chopped off
I would
on the
corpses
wrong
believe,
price
case of
psychotherapists),
someone
include
issues and

Dr.Leelah-
Though you have asked the question of Theresa I am jumping in
because I practised in India and so know what conditions prevail
there.
What is the difference between a priest and an ordinary person or a
health practitioner? (For me all 3 may describe a single person.)
My comments
A single person plays multiple roles. As doctors we try as much to
remain objective and not push our ideas on to the patient.As
homeopaths our expertise lies in homeopathic medicines and how to
apply it in disease to effect a cure. We are not experts in religion
or in theosophy. We have to be more careful because of the potential
abuse of doctor- patient relationship to influence patients in areas
where we are not the experts. We should not practise even
homeopathy on animals if we are not qualified to do it and if we are
not experts in animal health.

My comments
As homeoapths should we not have any concern for the state of a
persons soul? Does that mean then, that homeopathic treatment does
not take into account a persons soul? (HEre I am not refering to
religious prejudice.)

My comments
Hahnemann does not mention soul or its torment. Once again the
question of expertise is to be used to judge. If you are an ordained
minister and /or expert in matters of the soul there is no harm in
counseling esp. disclosing this fact to the patient and still
keeping it separate from homeopathic treatment. As I have mentioned
I have had patients coming for hypnotherapy and homeopathy and I
have mostly kept these separate.

Is another persons spiritual development of no consequence in ones
case taking and analysis? Often I have seen high Spiritual
development to hinder good case taking!
My comments
As long as you can find relevant rubrics in the repertory and
materia medica for the symptoms you glean then they are relevant -
but I would not think in a routine way for spiritual developlment.
If the complaint itself is of a spiritual one then it could be -
like the patient feeling he is God. The purpose of case taking once
again is to find a medicine. That must be our objective. Since we do
not have a clear yardstick for measuring spiritual development and
clearly we are not experts what can we do?
Moreover in my opinion religious belief and spiritual development
may not be the same. Person of one religion might not consider a
person practising another religion of proper spiritual development.
Such prejudices are common and inbuilt and we need to watch for
these influences when we practise.

I ask the above questions I"m keen to understand these boundaries,
because it seems to move even towards whether its OK for a homeopath
to give dietary advise without a DIeticians degree, and other similar
situations.

My comments
If the disease needs expert tailoring of the diet then definitely
you need to refer the patient to a dietician. For example if a
patient has liver failure or renal failure and need to be on special
diet and you need to tailor the protein intake and other things,
allow someone qualified to do it. At every stage the question must
be are we doing justice to the patient ( in his present condition)
by doing this or by not doing this...

In India - a doctor is expected to have all the answers. If a doctor
tells a patient to trust in God when matters cannot be explained - it
is very highly respected! Whehter one is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or
any religious background for that matter. Something weird about us
Indians?
My comments
What you say is true of conditions in India and so the abuse
potential of the doctor is so much greater. I have seen so many
physicians using this gullibility to their advantage to fleece money
from patients giving worthless medicines etc. When matters cannot be
explained properly then it is better to say so than give an idea
that you know the answers, That is respecting the patient's right
and will increase the confidence of the patient in you. You are
making the patient a partner by disclosing what you know and
accepting that you are ignorant when you do not know something. We
should not be God Players. We are NOT omnipotent or omniscient. The
more patients we see the more humble we become in our accepting our
limitations.

Homeopathy sometimes gives the doctors a "superman or superwoman"
feeling because we can be effective where even the specialists have
given up hope. We can see some of that in some postings here as
well. This is hubris.

We need to guard against it. Patient's rights and well-being are
much more important than fidelity to one's beliefs - whether such
belief is religious or homeopathic....
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "doctorleelah2h"
wrote:
see
someone
not
religious
development
homeopath
similar
doctor
it
or
wrote:
it,
death
to
people in
be
what
case of
the
see
doesn't
rejuvenated,
ceases to

HI Hahnemannian your comments make sense, but I would like to add a
slightly different perspective in some areas. thanks for your reply!

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

***That's right, I agree.

We are not experts in religion
***This of course is relative - if the homeoapth is trained in
spiritual aspects then ...?

We have to be more careful because of the potential
***Right, I think there has to be an awareness that there is a great
potential for what some people may call "abuse".
BUT then we need to understand what "abuse" is - and what are the
boundaries definig this term "abuse".
We should not practise even

***THis is one boundary. But as a homeopath if I can observe objective
signs enough to suggest a homeopathic remedy for an animal why should't I?
If a homeoapth has not been trained in medical diagnosis (study of
human disease - expert in human health), why should a homeopath be
prescribing for humans?
wouldn't this be an artificial boundary for a homeopath - unless every
homeoapth becomes medically qualified.

***HAve you read the CD? HAhnemann mentiones soul about 100 times
(well it feel like 100 times .
HE also mentions immoral behaviour which is a maintining cause for
some diseases.

Once again the

***YEs this is true - if the patient is aware and comfortable with you
being an expert in matters of the soul, then it becomes their choice
to seek homeopathic advise from you and if necessary "soul" advise.
But there are limits that have to be defined and I"m intersted in
understanding what these limits are from the Western perspective.
I know the Indian perspective - at least I think I do - but I'm sure I
could learn more!
As I have mentioned

***No, what I meant here is the fact that SPiritual development or
spirituality often causes people to play down factors that are
stressful to them. They avoid mentioning anything "bad" against other
people during case taking. They accept too much of stress not
realising the effect on their human body, but because they feel
spiritually comfortable doing so. So it takes a little more time to
extract a history and a little more time to truly understand the case
and what is limiting this person.

Homeopathy sometimes gives the doctors a "superman or superwoman"

***I think this is more a matter of personal maturity and spiritual
maturity actually. Only those who are emotionally immature or
spritually immature develop such tendencies ... but yes I think its
important to realise this possiblity exists. My litmus test for a
person and for a homeopath is HUMILITY. A person who is truly great,
from my perspective is a person who is (sincerely) humble and
compassionate.
But I"m getting some idea of what a "hubris" is.
thanks,
leela

Dr.Leelah-
I have nothing more to add about soul except that the use of the term
by Hahnemann is in a psychological way and not spiritual. This might
be due to translation etc. but he mentions soul most of the times
when he talks about disease of the body and soul etc. ( physical and
mental diseases). Sometimes he talks of diseases of body, mind and
soul but here I think the mind and soul stand for intellectual (
reasoning ) mind and emotional processes. At least I do not remember
seeing about spiritual guidance. That is why I wrote he did not talk
about souls ( spiritual ) torment.That is my understanding but I may
be wrong. People who are strong in chronic diseases like you and
probably spiritually focused might correct me. Do you think he spoke
of a spiritual, religious kind of soul when he talks about soul? Is
Psora the original sin? Ultimately setting boundaries boils down to
individual decision of what transpires in a treatment setting.

If a homeopath does not feel competent enough about handling humans
then he/she has no business doing so. Every homeopath sets a limit to
whatever he/she can do. May be at times one needs to work with the
specialist to manage the case alongside. I have done this many times
where I am responsible for homeopathic treatment whereas the patient
still visits the specialist for follow-up. That is why people with
CCH etc. who have not attended medical school still need to show
experience for having worked under someone and fulfill certain
requirements. There is no excuse for professional incompetence once
you hang a shingle...

In my opinion observing an animal and knowing a remedy for a set of
symptoms and signs is different from therapeutics - actually doing
treatment. Knowing what to give in the abstract is different from
real life practice. I have never done any vet practice for that
matter and I would not be comfortable doing it. May be once in a
while for my own pet- but not professionally professing that I am an
expert to whatever extent. I am not professional enough in that field
for me to offer help to someone else's suffering. Even for humans
there are limits to my practice even though homeopathy itself has a
lot of potential in the area I am avoiding.

It is the same thing as driving. I am licensed to drive a car- this
does not automatically make me good at driving a truck or a boat. I
may believe I am and surreptitiously do so- that is a different
matter.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

+++Dr. H, TO me it seems like seeing what one wants to see!
One can have a materialistic view point or a SPiritual one. From what
I could read - HAhemann was Praising God on every other page - hardly
a materialistic viewpoint don't you think?
At least I do not remember

Yes i do. When he used the term soul.
BUt I don't think he was refering to Spiritual Salvation when he used
the term Heillkunst.
Is

NO.
But Psroa is a physical expression of the soul not being right (with
God). Because we now became progressively susceptible to disease.
The important thing is that some of this terminology is Christian and
so demarcations have to be understood from that standpoint. Though
there are clear analogies in Hindu Vedic concepts as well.

But if you'd like to have a down to earth explanation, here it is:
The soul is the "go-between"/the conncetion between the Human Spirit
and the Divine SPirit. The human SPirit is the Vital Force. Affections
of the soul may often need Divine interventions. So just correction of
the vital force (peripherilly) is inadequate to remove those affections.
Miasm is the fundamental cause which is the human dimension of this
affection - the disturbance of the vital force (human spirit) at the
level of the soul which is expressed in the mind and body. This is the
scope of the similimum homeoapthic remedy - to correct the miasmatic
defect of the human spirit in the the human dimension.

But on the other side of the soul exists the SPirit of God, which can
also correct the Human SPirit - the vital force - through the soul.
This this is the power of God which heals. THis is how faith healings
take place. What blocks faith healing then are affections of the soul
that block the flow of the SPirit of God - and those include lack of
faith, scepticism or doubt, sin and immorality. The alienation is then
complete.

The homeopathic remedy CAN WORK on the human spirit even though there
exist blocks at the spiritual level. But there are instances 9which I
mentioned i earlier postings) when some spiritual blocks (similar to
demonic possessions) that feed the human/material disease and unless
these are removed, healing can never take place.

Of course, one has to be VERY wary of calling all illness demonic
possessions!!! Often they only result from spiritual alienation from
God - some (homeopathically) incurable cases.

Whether KEnt said that Proa is Sin or not is debatebale. Ive heard
Anti-Kentians try to put forward this idea. To me it seems like
putting words in the horse's and deliberately distract people from all
the useful homeopathic concepts KEnt taught. BUT this is just my
opinion at this stage which may change as I learn more about all this.

I hope this is helpful and give you some insight. Thanks for your
other opinions. Unfortunately I haven't heard from Teresa yet!
thanks,
leela

Dear Leela,

I was really interested in the topic as much as anything! In fact H2002 has pretty much expressed my views if i had had them formulated.

Moral issues are part of what we now call 'mental and emotional' spheres, and are represented in the repertories. Many homeopaths do have some training in psychotherapy and diet, I agree, and can advise/treat within limits of their competence and use their knowledge to inform their practice. Consideraton of maintaining causes is totally legitimate and often leads us there. There are limits though, defined by training and competence, which i don't think are always observed.

The kind of spiritual issues i was referring to followed on from discussion of the after life (albeit sheds!). The idea of judging how 'advanced' spiritually someone is, or the identification of karma with miasms; the idea of consciously influencing someone's karmic development with remedies; the concept of treating someone/thing that is dead on the grounds that life goes on or that the love of others give it a residual life that is therefore still treatable; remedies to remove malign spiritual presences - all this really.
I suppose I think that when we put another hat on we should not call what we are doing homeopathy, or think that being homeopaths necessarily qualifies us to do these things. Many of my patients are church goers, witnesses, Buddhists, spiritualists etc and I think I can do my job perfectly well without taking charge of that area of their lives! I would be pleased if someone developed more awareness of the ethical or spiritual side of life in the course of their homeopathic treatment, but I would not have prescribed remedies specifically for that, I don't think, or on the grounds that they 'needed' to think differently about those things and it was my job to see that they did.. There are a lot of grey areas, I admit.
In this country the boundary is crossed most often by 'new agers' for want of a better term, but in the past we had doctors who passed judgement on patients' lives and moral and spiritual welfare in a way, I agree with H2002, that would seem quite abusive and intrusive now, however well-meant at the time.

Hubris was the downfall of many an ancient Greek who thought he could deal with the gods on equal terms: a kind of arrogance.

Thank you both for your responses

Theresa
This has been on my mind lateley as well - but possibly not in the
same context as yours. But I would like to hear your point of view.

What does "hubris" mean for you? I'm unfimilar with that word.

What is the difference between a priest and an ordinary person or a
health practitioner? (For me all 3 may describe a single person.)

As homeoapths should we not have any concern for the state of a
persons soul? Does that mean then, that homeopathic treatment does not
take into account a persons soul? (HEre I am not refering to religious
prejudice.)

Is another persons spiritual development of no consequence in ones
case taking and analysis? OFten I ahve seen high Spiritual development
to hinder good case taking!

I ask the above questions I"m keen to understand these boundaries,
because it seems to move even towards whether its OK for a homeopath
to give dietary advise without a DIeticians degree, and other similar
situations.
In India - a doctor is expected to have all the answers. If a doctor
tells a patient to trust in God when matters cannot be explained - it
is very highly respected! Whehter one is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or
any religious background for that matter. Something weird about us
Indians?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Theresa,
Thanks for your response.
It is helpful and may ask more questions? I need a little more
enlightenment! BElow ....

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "theresa partington" wrote:
H2002 has pretty much expressed my views if i had had them formulated.
spheres, and are represented in the repertories. Many homeopaths do
have some training in psychotherapy and diet, I agree, and can
advise/treat within limits of their competence and use their knowledge
to inform their practice. Consideraton of maintaining causes is
totally legitimate and often leads us there. There are limits though,
defined by training and competence, which i don't think are always
observed.
discussion of the after life (albeit sheds!). The idea of judging how
'advanced' spiritually someone is, or the identification of karma with
miasms; the idea of consciously influencing someone's karmic
development with remedies; the concept of treating someone/thing that
is dead on the grounds that life goes on or that the love of others
give it a residual life that is therefore still treatable; remedies to
remove malign spiritual presences - all this really.

+++OK I accept - this is certainly crossing the line here.
SPiritual development is separate from homeopathy in terms of choice
of remedies. I don't think anyone, except God can know exactly where a
person is spiritually. There are no artificial stages becasue each
persons developemnt is different. I dont think I understand any
mechanism by which someone can rmeove "Spiritual Presences" or
consciously influence "karmic development".

MAybe this stems from confusions about what vital force is and what is
teh scope of a homeopathic remedy. Both are energy - but giving them
unbriddled scope is making a human being and human spirit
unnecessarily vulnerable to negative influences in the atmonspehere
that may have nothing to do with a remedy! To me It would result in
the effect of un-indicated homeoapthic remedies prescribed
indiscriminately.
what we are doing homeopathy, or think that being homeopaths
necessarily qualifies us to do these things.

+++ I completely agree with you here!

Many of my patients are church goers, witnesses, Buddhists,
spiritualists etc and I think I can do my job perfectly well without
taking charge of that area of their lives! I would be pleased if
someone developed more awareness of the ethical or spiritual side of
life in the course of their homeopathic treatment, but I would not
have prescribed remedies specifically for that, I don't think, or on
the grounds that they 'needed' to think differently about those things
and it was my job to see that they did.. There are a lot of grey
areas, I admit.
+++ Again I completely agree. For me a grey area woulld be to see
someone spiritually struggling and where my advise would defintiely
help. If they were non-Christian, I would suggest that they learn some
yoga techniques of meditation and relaxation. If they were Chrsitain
like me - i'd tell them a Christian way of working things out - but
would leave it to then to find what was suitable for themselves and
make their own choices, follow their own Spiritual growth - there are
innumerable opportunies for them to do so.
for want of a better term, but in the past we had doctors who passed
judgement on patients' lives and moral and spiritual welfare in a way,
I agree with H2002, that would seem quite abusive and intrusive now,
however well-meant at the time.

+++This is something I don't understand at all. DUH! No expereince
with it.
Is there any way you could spell this out for me a little more? What
are some of these situations? how do they become abusive or intrusive?
thanks!

could deal with the gods on equal terms: a kind of arrogance.

+++OK, thanks! Arrogance - right! As I told Dr H earlier, for me the
hallmark of a truly SPiritual person is true humility and sincere
compassion for others (among other characteristics of lesser importance).
Thanks for your reply!
Leela