Dear Chris, Felix and all,
I have studied both Sankaran and Scholton, and I know Sankaran and his wife Divya personally. Sankaran has been a lecturer in my college.
I think WE OURSELVES as those ascribing to different methods need to have a balance before we put the blame on what they are teaching us. One cannot call onself a homeopath if one has NOT studied Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine, "classical" Materia Medica as handed down to us by the great homeopaths, as well as Homoeopathic Pharmacy (the method of preparation of homoeoapthic medicine). Without this basis, I see no point trying to prescribe anything for anyone listening to any instruction new or old.
So if one were to study Sankaran's work or Scholton's work, one would expect that the person is already well grounded in the "classical" knowlege of homoeopathy. Then the next step is whether that person is OPEN to understanding another spproach of understanding symptoms that the patient presents, besides the old methods.
No-where has either Sankaran or Scholton said that their interpretation of remedies (and patient symptoms) holds good all the time, or that what they describe, be the only basis for precribing a remedy in a patient. I will personally vouch for that. In fact both of them have said on record that often in a case they are stumped and they have their share of clinical failures too.
Sankaran has worked with his father P. Sankaran for more than 25 years, adn therefore has more than adequate knowlege in "calssical" prescribing. Scholton too has had adequate instruction with George Vitoulkas who I suppose is considered a "classical" homeopath. So I don't think they discount the basic materia medica at all.
In fact what they are doing is highlighting an aspect of the Materia Medica, certain PROVING symptoms that we are still not able to make any sense of and hence not able to recognize them in patients. There is a HUGE part of the Mind repertory called "Delusions". They are symptoms from provings. They have not appeared there by magic. Has anybody ever tried to explain them?
THere was a long discussion on this board about them, adn each one is trying to interpret them on the basis of "modern psychology". What does Modern Psychology know about homeopathy or homeopathic personalities? How can modern psychology explain a homeopathic proving put into a chapter of delusions? These symptoms were termed "delusion" precisely because our teachers could not interpret them otherwise, to make use of them in the "normal" sense. But they are proving symptoms NO LESS.
SO now we have a couple of brilliant minds with a clear, GOD GIVEN perception... and we prefer to criticize them and discount their brilliance.
I prescribe "clasically" often, and especially in acute conditions and highly pathological cases (to mention some instances). BUt I do make use of the methods of Sankaran and Scholton in constitutional prescribing only because I find it easier. But it is always supported with grounded facts of Physical generals and PQRS.
If it does not fit, the "classical" method works best. No doubt about that.
Granted the caution that Crhis mentions, but I think its all about suiting a method to the patients picture presentation rather than to our own fixed ideas.
And if that is not possible, the by all means one must stick to the "classical" methods.
Regards,
doctorleela
[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: doctorleela ]</p>
|