Frank, I was thinking over what you wrote a few weeks ago regarding the ethics of prescribing without consent. Your example of the Aurum situation was illuminating.
The aspect that makes me most uneasy can also be illustrated by that example; what if Aurum were given and, although it was the correct remedy, it gave a momentary aggravation, and the patient jumped!?
Aggravations are a major reason not to prescribe without consent.
It is too much to take upon ourselves the responsibility for the outcome of a prescription - that must remain with the patient for our sake as well as theirs. And for that reason the choice of whether to administer the remedy should not rest with the homoeopath.

Anna, I tend to agree with you, but I would like to throw a "monkey wrench" in to this discussion, if I may. I would love to have your educated, professional opinion. When the correct remedy is given, I understand that it imparts a sense of well being to the patient, so that should the patient suffer an aggravation, the aggravation would not have the same impact as dis-ease without the benefit of a remedy. If we follow this train of thought, I tend to doubt that a suicidal patient would commit suicide. The action of the remedy would aggravate with thoughts, feelings of suicide, but the vitality of the remedy would prevent them from doing damage. Of course, this is speculation, and life is the point of homeopathy, so I can certainly understand and respect your caution. However, I think there is something special about homeopathic remedies that somehow needs to be factored in: they work, and if we accept this upon evidence, then how do we handle this? With confidence, or cautious retreat? Tricky! Love, Mselle

[This message has been edited by Mselle (edited 14 July 2000).]

Mselle, nice thoughts. Homoeopaths need to make a distinction between the patient and her/his disease. I wonder if these are really separable though. The example given provides the ultimate question. If the suicidal tendency becomes aggravated, is there anything 'beneath' that which can be said to improve so as to stop the tendency taking its effect? I don't have the answer.

the mind parts, are in most cases, (except true insanity..as some would say), are a result of troubles in the organism, when giving a correct homeopatic remedie, the first to experience a amel, is the mind area..so it lessens..not aggravates..while the body gets the agg.., and, its not a homeopaths job to play judge, by separating the person and the disease during treatment, that is done afterwards..whne the real person is showing..you are only to take his symptomes..and if you know how to do that.well then you will suxceed,have suxess, but not if you force a personal picture of a pschyological.distoreted homeopathic teaching on the person..then your guarranteed to fail..


[This message has been edited by GM (edited 14 July 2000).]

GM and cib, thanks for these interesting reflections.
You both appear to suggest that there is no aggravation of deep mental disturbance, and the patient begins to recover without a potentially dangerous aggravation.
Hmmm, so when the deepest part of a person is troubled, there is no aggravation of that part, but possibly of less important areas as the disease works its way out...?
Is this what you have observed in practice?

Yes, but precaution is needed,cause even if your feeling safe that you got the correct remedy, you got to controll the situasion, and everybody dont react in the same tempo, so, if you cant controll it, then others must do it for you, cause even if correct, it may not work, cause of different reasons, a destroyed rem, a block,antidote, or that its wrong, in most cases its wrong remedie.
You have been overconfident, and you have used personalpictures, instead of repertorizing..thourough..and you have taken nonevaluable symptomes as firstsymptomes, evaluated wrong, cause of those personalpictures teachings..populisthomeopathys catastropic..ways..

Ethics of prescribing without consent in suicidal cases is a very real thing to me.

The basic principle is that I do not give a remedy without seeing the person and getting consent.

Several times in the last two years this has come up at the clinic I work at. Each case is different and one must weigh the situation and give treatment based on the symptoms presented. Since in these cases the person comes into the clinic, it is an sign that they want help and is an indication of consent, so we proceed in those cases. We make sure that these persons are not left by themself for the next two days.
When someone other than the patient himself tells about the suicidal person. This is when the question of ethics may comes into play. I personally will not use deception or force a person to take a remedy. I will not give a remedy without seeing the person themself. In this case the patient will say yes or no to taking the remedy themself.
When will the question of giving a remedy without consent happen then? Seldom. Perhaps in the case of schizophrenia. Then in this case there is a guardian to make the decision.
If the person says they do not want to be treated homeopathicly then I will refer them to The Chrisis Centre or other authorities or whatever is available. I will treat them as a fellow human with respect and give as much aid as I can.

I have found that in suicidal conditions that the remedy works very quickly. In five minutes I see a change of expression on the face of the person, and in twenty minutes they can talk rationally.



[This message has been edited by cib (edited 15 July 2000).]

Been away for a long weekend so some catching up to do. Right ethics.....
There are the ethics of the founder Hahnemann and there are others. The founder refers to those principles in accord with natural law. Others cover the principles as outlined by professional bodies, inter personal politics and political correctness.

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.

Professional bodies code of ethics insist on prior consent in line with current litigious environment. This is especially strong in US and Ireland! Maxim being cover your ass.

Inter personal politics would cover the realm of prescriber patient relationship. Elsewhere customer is king but here not so. It is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship with a veto option. If the person could help themselves they wouldn't be asking. If they don't like the advice they may exercise the veto option. Maxim being advice given in good faith, take it or leave it.

Political correctness is an artificial set of moral or religous precepts which may or may not be in accordance with nature. Might be that dogma prevents progress. Maxim being don't interfere with their karma.

Of course the homeopath is under no obligation to help on the BB and also has a veto. Maxim being play by the rules of homeopathy if you want to play.

That was a Irish mouthful, well written..concise and to the point.

AUDE SAPERE.