this article confronts some current prescriptions in homeopathy with hahneman guidlines and disputes them with an orthodoxical view
Hahneman’s name is mingled with homeopathy. Around the world homeopathy is known with its founder’s name and all of homeopaths know themselves as his disciples. Hahneman wrote two important books in principles, method and guidelines of homeopathic treatment: organon and chronic diseases (the chronic diseases-their peculiar nature and their homeopathic cure ) but how many of these disciples really have read these books? In all courses of homeopathy these two books are introduced as references but usually there are not distinct syllabuses with these names or any lessons for studying and interpreting them so many of educated homeopaths never have read them yet Sometimes ago I met a naturopath who supposed had known homeopathy very well but when I spoke about solution method of prescribing remedies in homeopathy surprisingly was found he had heard none about it and when I told it is written in organon 6 he hesitantly denied and I knew afterward he had never read organon . We know many new views and styles are established in homeopathy after hahneman but no master or inducer ever pretended to change principles or basics of homeopathy. If we take a look at organon and read philosophy and methodology of homeopathy as are described by hahneman can not easily understand many current prescriptions. Organon 6th in aphorism 272-274 clearly is stated:
In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. (1) (a)
(1) Some homoeopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy homoeopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, through it may sometimes seem to be of use
In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple (++) medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances”.]
As the true physician finds in simple medicines, administered singly and uncombined, all that he can possibly desire (artificial disease-forces which are able by homoeopathic power completely to overpower, extinguish, and permanently cure natural diseases), he will, mindful of the wise maxim that “it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when simple means suffice, ” never think of giving as a remedy any but a single, simple medicinal substance……. )
But again we can see multiplex drugs or multiple prescriptions in same time which certainly have no excuses.
Homeopathic remedies are taken in two main ways: dry dose and solutions and there are two main ways for prescriptions: single dose and divided repeated doses. Regard to route of formation and progress of homeopathic medication show hahneman had used initially crude materials (and afterward probably tinctures) then he introduced dynamization and potentization of drugs, at first he used dry globules then he presented other ways such as olfactory and solution method as is explained in 248 aphorism of organon
Nowadays we are witnesses of prescription of many globules in 30 c 200 c or even higher potencies several times a day in acute and every or every other day or week in chronic diseases. It is a serious and important question: on which statement or paragraph of organon or chronic diseases are these based on?
If these homeopaths are hahneman’s disciples why their method are so different?
In 247 aphorism of organon is said:
([“It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure). The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance…… .
But if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher (pp. 269-270) then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer”. (*]).
and in it’s foot note:
(*) [“We ought to not even with the best chosen homoeopathic medicine, for instance one pellet of the same potency that was beneficial at first, to let the patient have a second or third dose, taken dry. In the same way, if the medicine was dissolved in water and the first dose proved beneficial, a second or third and even smaller dose from the bottle standing undisturbed, even in intervals of a few days, would prove no longer beneficial, even though the original preparation had been potentized with ten succussions or as I suggested later with but two succussions in order to obviate this disadvantage)
So the first conclusion is we never can repeat the same drug without modifying it so certainly there are no reason for repeating 30 c 200 c or other potencies as dry globules or even solutions without modifying each dose (succession of bottle) though hahneman himself in 284 aphorism wrote we can repeat remedies every 2 to 6 hours and even sooner in acute diseases and everyday or other day in chronics. In fact there is no conflict
The main difference is in the way of prescription which absolutely is been cleared by hahneman in aphorisms 246-247-248 and esp. 248
Regard to these aphorisms we can conclude the only way for safe and efficient repeating drugs in short intervals contains four important points:
First the remedy should be the most homeopathic one
Second it should be prepared as solution
Third should be prescribed in small doses and the
Fourth and most important is to modify each dose by shaking or succussion of solution
Regard to 247 aphorism we can emphasize use of solution is not sufficient to repeat doses. Without modifying (shaking) to repeat the same solution as well as the same dry globule is useless or can be harmful.
It seems those who prescribe repeated dry globules several times a day or a week have mingled two different ways of prescription which are introduced separately by hahneman: dry single dose and solution divided doses
Anyway each of these methods has its own evaluation management and controls and never can be mixed. Hahneman in preface of chronic disease –part 2 declared :
( Experience has shown me, as it has no doubt also shown to most of my followers, that it is most useful in diseases of any magnitude (no excepting even the most acute, and still more so in the half-acute, in the tedious and most tedious) to give to the patient the powerful homoeopathic pellet or pellets only in solution, and this solution in divided doses.)
Anyhow if anyone doesn’t prefer solution divided doses and tends to use older method of dry doses must completely be faithful to basis and principles of this method which has two great points: first prescribing homeopathic remedy as a single dry dose and second control and evaluation of vital force response to remedy in proper time with sufficient patience which is called wait and watch method
There are some homeopaths who regard to such emphasis and evoke of hahneman’s writings as a kind of dogmatism or fanaticism. They argue if hahneman had lived more certainly had maked many changes in his writings as had done before They say organon is not a bible and changes after 200 years are inevitable
Who doesn’t know that creativity and open-minded thinking will have been followed by growth and development but without regarding basics and essential concepts and roots this new thoughts may lead to converted or even actually contrary conclusions .There are some who claim themselves as modernists and desire to changes even in basics and principles .In my opinion they should write their own organon .They can make their own way and of course with other name .Hahneman spent about 50 years of his worthful life with support of his informal intellect and perseverance along with his careful observing power and creative deduction to make such a structure which after passing over 200 years is still strong and useful. He introduced a safe and precise medication with performable and reasonable details. If it has any defects it is less about mode of treatment or evaluation and management but may be has deficiencies in interpretation or explanation of undeniable facts which are proven by experience
Now if any modernist wants to destroy this structure or changes its basics must presents sufficient evidences and adequate proofs and at least spends an appropriate time to observe, to prove and to compare his conclusions with hahneman’s
Otherwise this may not be reliable
Remember making is hard and destroying is easy but to destroy without to make a better new one is not appreciable
DR. BEHNOOSH NOOSHEE
MD. DIHOM. FAMILY HOMEOPATH. RIHA