I aprieciate your imput GM regarding proceeding with caution and what can happen.

Frank, I'm not clear of what you are saying. Do I have it right?
It seems to me you are saying that we are obligated to give the remedy. "As a homeopath Hahnemann's principles come first and you would be expected to give remedy with or without consent to suicidal person. Maxim being do your job."

Then you say not nessecarily so.
"Maxim being advice given in good faith, take it or leave it."
"Maxim being don't interfere with their karma."
Yes, that is the way ethical situations are. Their not black or white. I am not tied to the rules of an organization, religious, policial or otherwise. I take responsibility for making a decision based on each case individually using my concience and knowledge and I am prepared to accept the consequences of it.

In Canada there is a 'Good Samaritan Act' which allows any citizen to give assistance in an emergency and they can not be charged for doing so. "Nice" Fits the bill for us so we will be able to continue helping unhampered.

Hello.
Suicide aside..
Consent; to agree;to give permission;to comply;to be of the same mind..
When we treat our children, it can only be said it is with 'consent' because they automatically accept our authority...
What about elderly people who are too confused to hold a conversation?
Or drunk people who beg for help,then can't remember in the morning, but it's too late because they've already had a remedy in their whiskey? Oops.
Life is risk.

Hahnemann's directions in Organon are B&W. The world we live in is not. Which maxim we follow is are own personal choice and responsibility. Mine is Hahnemann's. You are lucky to have a samaritan clause!

Frank, I apprieciate your perspective.

A law is set with no allowance for variation.
One MUST stay within its boundaries. Example the laws of homeopathy are constant and unchangeable, scientific and specific. No ethics needed there.

However principle allows room for consideration of the circumstances and for latitude. I do accept Hahnemann's magnum opus, Organnon, but not blindly. I ask why, when I study things, so I can comprehend the basis for the fact presented, so I can get his mind on the matter. I strive not for just knowledge but for wisdom.

Again on the matter of treating a suicidal person. The patient may not be capable of giving concent becasue their thinking at that time is off balance. If no one else is present then yes I would have to behave in a responsible manner and respect life. I still evaluate each case and yet I have never refused to treat such a case. This isn't because I follow Hahnemann's direction mindlessly but rather because I understand the reasons for the conclusions that Hahnemann has came to. I would not like to see a person treat only because Hahnemann said to and shift the blame or responsiblity off of themself. You have studied the Organnon and have confidence in its writings but many other haven't. So they need guidelines to help them understand the application of homeopathic principles. Is it ethical to follow a certain way just becasue someone else says so. I think not. Homeopathy uses reason, part of being balanced.

Now... how about when people have terminal illness. What is your stand? Death may be a refief. The ultimate "cure"?

Louise
"Children .. automatically accept our authority." Hum.... Dream on...
Children are not mature enough to make life and death decisions. That's why they need guardians. Parents...
Unfortunatly many parents abuse this authority by making decisions that satisfy their needs and not neseccarily benefiting the children...

[This message has been edited by cib (edited 19 July 2000).]

vfvfv

Would anyone care to tell me when , and where , and by whom, Hahnemann, ever was proven wrong?
Surely not by you CIB?

If only Melanie could answer...

Anna,
Mark on the wall for all us wives ! ! !
Louise,
Your points are well taken. I was just feeling frolicsome. Oh yeh, I have four adult children with three sons in law and six grandchildren. and found out that mental illness is inherited, one gets it from their kids. I hope I live long enough to give them problems. Pay back time. All in fun.

Does anyone care to comment on the serious ethical question of ones stand on treatment when the patient is terminally ill? When they want to end their life?

Regarding euthanasia: this seems far less problematic for a homoeopath - because a remedy cannot kill a person. It's not comparable to giving a conventional drug which can impose death on a person. The remedy, as Misha put it, "rolls out the red carpet" toward the portal of death. It's an offer of an easeful passing, not a forced exit.
Vithoulkas has something to say about the importance of homoeopathy in this situation too. As I recall, he writes that the value of homoeopathy in maintaining the dying patient's free consciousness is of huge value in permitting the patient reflection on his/her life in the passing moments.

Hello. I'm awake now.
I don't know what dealings you've had with kids, cib, but if mine don't toe the line each will be out in the street with a begging bowl!
The question I was trying to raise was about consent and when is it true, suicide not aside now.
Like, how many people who make suicide attempts survive, because of whatever reason, to see another day, and are really glad they didn't die? Many,many,many.
Of course we do not know how many are ok with their choice...as you so gracefully assert, Anna...
But consider the survivors gratitude multiplied by hundreds to include friends and family.
Are suicidal people not deluded to desire death? And, not unlike kids, in need of guidance?
I refer now to Hahnemann's Lesser Writtings and the essay 'There is good even in hurtful things.'
'He who has a narrow escape from drowning learns to swim, and by this accomplishment is enabled to save the lives of others.'
Insight like this is what make him an authority, and indeed, the father of homeopathy.