"few chronic cases go along kentian lines of "classical cures" with a single remedy. it is not a useful model for most cases, and is ignorant of hahnemann's teaching."
Anna, I think this is a very shortsighted statement.
There are cases that require a single remedy, and then there are cases that require 2-3 remedies, or any number. SOme also need antimiasmatic intercurrents, acutes, etc to make the cases more clear.
Then there are cases that have blocks due to various reasons, adn it takes a lot of time and skill to understand all these ramifications. Besides that we've got patients who are on allopathy, to deal with. PAtients who have lifestyles not conducive to a remedy helping, etc etc.
You seem to sound like that the 10 practitioners worldwide who practice "Hahnemanian" prescribing have a 100% success rate???
I've always believed that the practice of homeoapthy requires a team effort, as each one's experience of individual cases as well as knowledge of remedies has an important place.
Cases that don't do well with one method, will certainly do better with another. Then there are the limitaitions of a homeopath also to consider.
I wish we'd stop bashing one another and demoralising one another, homeoapthy is intensive enough to practice as it is.
As far as I see, its more important to be open to various methods of analysis that work, as individual to a case rather than be fixed on a particular way. Always keep the remedy reponse of the patient in mind.
After all, isn't that we're all about - healing the sick?
Sometimes I wonder if its just more of hanging on to ones philosophies/beliefs or proving to be more superior.
[ 13. March 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: doctorleela ]
|