Hit-and-miss prescribing like that is common amongst the Vithoulkas school of thought.
Would you care to attempt to justify it according to Hahnemann's method and every other legitimate Hahnemannian/classical homeopath in history?
Hahnemann from Contrast of the Old and the New Systems of Medicine, paragraph 30 (
http://www.minutus.org/contrast.htm):
"Now admitting, what likewise cannot be denied, that, in order to cure, the main business of the physician consists in KNOWING BEFOREHAND the medicine from which A CURE IS MOST CERTAINLY TO BE EXPECTED [emphasis mine, meaning the simillimum], he must, seeing that a cure by medicines takes place only by reason of an alteration effected in the state of the health, above all things know beforehand what alterations in man’s health the several medicines can effect, before he selected one of them for administration, if he do not wish to be guilty for a criminal inconsiderateness, and an unpardonable attack upon human life;- for if every powerful medicine can make the healthy sick, an ignorantly selected, consequently an unsuitable, medicine must necessarily render the patient worse than he was."
A deeper consideration involves finding the person's simillimum ("thing most similar") rather than merely one of the many simile drugs with which cases are zig zagged to cure over a much longer period of time and rarely successfully.
Throwing medicines into people is a bit off the scale compared to anything else, for we affect them deeply if close or perfectly, but only perfectly or ideally really produces a cascade effect over a long period that manifests through Hering's Laws of Cure because the organism then takes command over the situation rather than us wrangling it to order.
Does that make sense?
-----
From Kent's REPERTORY (
http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep1/kent0355.htm#P357):
FACE, cracked lips (K357): Agar., ail., aloe., alum., am-c., am-m., ambr., ant-t., arn., ars., Arum-t., aur., bapt., bar-c., bell., bism., bov., Bry., calc-s., Calc., caps., carb-ac., carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., caust., cham., chel., chin-a., Chin., cimic., colch., con., cop., cor-r., croc., cupr., dros., Graph., guare., ham., hell., ign., iris., jatr., kali-ar., kali-bi., kali-c., kali-i., kali-p., kali-s., kalm., kreos., Lach., mag-m., merc-c., merc., mez., nat-a., nat-c., Nat-m., nicc., nit-ac., nux-v., par., ph-ac., phos., plat., plb., puls., rhus-t., sabad., sel., sil., spig., squil., stram., Sulph., tab., tarax., ter., verat., zinc.
lower lip : Apis., cham., cimic., nat-c., nit-ac., phos., Sep.
middle of : Agar., am-c., aur-m., cham., dros., hep., nat-m., puls.
That's one symptom rubric.
For an unambiguous prescription, you'd need for there to be at least three uncommon symptoms.
Do you think that is an uncommon symptom?
I'll provisionally grant it is rare, and that suffices.
Can you show me two others?
If I grant that sunken eyes is uncommon, we see this list:
EYES sunken (K267): Acet-ac., aeth., agar., am-c., anac., ant-c., Ant-t., arg-n., arn., ars-i., ars., aster., bar-m., bell., berb., bufo., cadm., calc., camph., canth., carb-s., carb-v., cedr., chel., chin-a., chin-s., Chin., chlor., cic., cimic., Cina., coc-c., coca., colch., coloc., crot-h., cupr., cur., cycl., dros., ferr-ar., ferr-p., ferr., glon., graph., haem., hell., iod., iris., kali-ar., kali-br., kali-c., kali-i., kali-p., kreos., lach., lith., lyc., merc-c., merc., morph., naja., nit-ac., nux-v., oena., olnd., op., ox-ac., petr., ph-ac., phos., phyt., plat., plb., podo., Puls., raph., rob., sang., Sec., sep., spong., stann., staph., stram., stry., sulph., tab., ter., teucr., thuj., til., upa., verat., vip., zinc.
If I then grant that desiring sour foods and drinks is uncommon, remembering that food desires are rarely characteristic symptoms compared with aversions since everyone should relish tastes, we have these two rubrics:
STOMACH, Desires pungent things ((K486): Ars., aster., cist., fl-ac., hep., lac-c., nat-p., ph-ac., sang.
Desires sour, acids, etc. : Alum., alumn., am-c., am-m., ant-c., ant-t., apis., arg-n., arn., ars., arund., bell., bol., bor., brom., bry., calc-s., calc., carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., cham., chel., chin-a., chin., cist., con., conv., Cor-r., corn., cub., cupr., dig., elaps., ferr-ar., ferr-m., ferr-p., ferr., fl-ac., gran., Hep., hipp., ign., kali-ar., kali-bi., kali-c., kali-p., kali-s., kreos., lach., mag-c., mang., med., merc-i-f., nat-m., phel., phos., plb., podo., psor., ptel., puls., rhus-t., sabad., sabin., sec., sep., squil., stram., sul-i., sulph., thea., ther., thuj., ust., Verat., ziz.
Is that your case?
-----
Next, per the requirements named on page 121 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES (
http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/hahchr12.htm#P120) identifying high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs), would you care to then justify that prescription per a verbatim match of symptoms according to the Law of Similars?
Where is the materia-medica comparison required by the Law of Similars, which says that symptoms match?
[ 17. October 2003, 13:56: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]