of course, we certainly do know, within limits, why stammering or any other pathology occurs, in a particular individual at a particular time, based on careful observation and case taking.
the fact that there are competing explanatory schemes - freudian and jungian and whatever - may fuel debate, but does nothing to undermine the fact that we are able to 'know' things about the world and how it gets to be the way it is; it's the same issue with hahnemannians and kentians and all the rest, recommending different remedies based on different methods of analysis.
the issue is knowing why you're analyzing whatever it is you're analyzing, and gearing your analysis appropriately for the goals you have in mind. and observing closely the course of treatment and correcting your interventions as you go. "causes" may generally be unimportant in homeopathic case taking - though i wouldn't be surprised if that question proved able to generate a bit of discussion in these forums - but in any case the same is not true for other forms of treatment, for example psychotherapy, or even the more informal adjunctive counseling in the homeopathic office ... unless you are saying our understanding of our circumstances, or our patients' circumstances, are haphazard guesswork. in which case, why prefer jung over freud, or anyone over anyone?
aaanyway, if stammering persists, the best approach imo would be a full 'constitutional' homeopathic treatment. even so, it's possible that a good psychodynamic psychotherapy might optimize gains in some respects; even more certainly, attention to issues of wellness will best ensure that other problems don't eventually develop in the place of this one: just because the "antioxidant" [edit: detox] action of homeopathy - so to speak - is enormously effective, doesn't mean we should be indiscriminate in our habits.
[ 28. March 2004, 23:37: Message edited by: bwv11 ]
__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.
|