Okay - been reading the Organon lots since my studies began and feel my college is very good at hammering the philosophy.

What I am baffled by - is the use of the term "Constitutional Remedy"....it seems to imply that if that one magic remedy were found - that it would cure everything that is wrong with the given patient.

In reading Hahnemann - that seems not to be the case....especially studying Chronic Diseases by the same. So, what is the deal with the use of this term by UK Homeopaths? Can someone explain this to me, please?

Input from ALL is most welcome.

Also, in my lectures (taped) - I noticed that ALL of the lecturers avoid using that term and when students ask questions using that term - I also noticed the lecturer cautioning them against trying to lump information this way...but there was no further lecture that covers this (so far - to this point in my studies).

So, I would like to know when this term came into use - who 'coined' it...and what it actually means.

Many thanks all!
Lisa

BTW - my college is in UK...interesting they don't promote this term?!

[This message has been edited by Lisa007 (edited 01 June 2000).]

"Simply stated, it involves taking the whole person into account as far as this is possible, and treating the person simultaneously on all levels - physical, mental and emotional. The expression 'treat the person , not the disease' maybe more accurately applied to this method than any other." After that definition comes quotes from The Organon 210-13 and later it is stated that the prescribing method is from the 5th Edition of the Organon as in the 6th Hahnermann was into LMs.

"In Great Britain the Kentian Method is now so widely taught and practised that many are misled into thinking that it is the only way..... The constitutional approach is most appropriate in chronic functional disorders where there are wll marked mental/emotional and general symptoms. ..... It is generally less appropriate in advanced and serious degenerative pathologies, also in heavily drugged and allopathically suppressed cases. ( That's why I was taught to bang the remedy in low if a patient is on continual antibiotics etc.) Although good results can still be obtained with constitutional prescribing in these types f cases, a very high level of skill is required and often a change in technique will form a more gratifying result........ It is very time consuming....The giving of one dose can be fragile and susceptable to antidoting."

I hope that will do for starters. When I have time I will find more!

Ohhhh -

Thanks so much...

any others?
It sounds as if Christine is saying what I was TRYING to say....oh - so much to digest....

please - more more more....and thanks!
Lisa

Short and easy told: always prescribe after whats present!

And not after the " constituitonal" as classicals do, if not able to find the correct present remedie, then they use the "constitutional" that worked last time, regardless of when, even if it was ten years ago.
And its nice to se that it really is written in organon 5, that "Eisyagas metode"!

And LMs, well in organon 6, Hahnemann added this metode as a tool in difficult cases, this dont do away with the other tools of Hanemann, from earlier editions of Organon, as many classicals seem to belive, and to market.
Bad teachers get bad student, bad students destroy homeopathy..defend "bastard" practising..Hahnemann used consequently the word bastard , whene adressing those, i use the word student and teacher, but the word bad, are probably offending, so come on complain of foul language..all metodes are allowed in order to supress the thruth..
Hahnemann was throwed out of Germany,( his homeland) so..how easy is it not to throw followers of him out of the bb..
Im just waiting to get it confirmed..

Beliveing, is not the same as knowing..

PS. and that metode..." remedies are fragile and susceptible to antidoting", THIS IS THE FAVOURITE EXCUSE OF BAD HOMEOPATHS WHO IS NOT ABLE TO FIND THE CORRECT REMEDIE!, When it dont work..the patient has antidoted,..and there they start a regime of supressing, the excuse is ready!



[This message has been edited by GM (edited 02 June 2000).]

There were 3 articles on "Constitution" in the British Homoeopathic Journal in July 1998, vol 87, pages 141-153, which you might find interesting reading.

Definition of Constitution according to dictionary: character of body as regards health, strength, etc; mental character; mode in which State is organised.
Constitutional: Of, inherent in, affecting bodily or mental constitution; essential.

Hmmm.

In classical view isn't the constitution the latent miasmatic state? By treating patients at this level (if we ever get the chance to do so) optimizes their health.

Lisa,
I'll give you my homeopath's "take" on a costitutional. He insists on initially treating the person rather than the symptoms, in an attempt to "right the ship". In other words, to bring the person's body, organs, glands, mental, psyche, etc. into balance so that this person stands the best chance for optimal health (by fortifying & and clearing the way for the vital force to do what it's meant to). He usually expects someone to be on this constitutional remedy for an average of 2 years, at which point this state of optimal health has been achieved (if the correct constitutional was chosen, mind you!). From that point on, he goes on to treat symptoms that arise.

What do others here think of this?

RF

two years in general, on a "constitutional", is stupid, cause all cases are individual, and its only chronics that it may take many years to cure, but that implies several remedies..not allopahty in two years! Breach of the law of homeopathy.

Hi Ricky, I pasted your post from the other thread...

"Thanks for your suggestion GM but I've just taken a 10M of my dare I say it "constitutional " remedy ( according to my homeopath) and it is improving my current symptoms. I don't look at the 5 hours sleep as a problem as there are not enough hours in the day for me anyway!! I don't have difficulty getting back to sleep when I wake up after the 2 hours. BTW consolation does not agg., I've no grief problems, hate the seaside and all that sand ( I live in a seaside town) don't like very salty food, love the heat and the sun, don't have to be in control and I talk too much to be a Natrium! And no I'm not Lachesis!

Thanks for your concern anyway."

I certainly don't know which remedy you would need...and wouldn't profess to....my query is about 'constitutional remedies'...as you know.

I was just wondering - if a Homeopath sticks to one remedy - even though that patient's symptoms have changed - is that not tantamount to beating a dead horse? I promise - I'm not being contentious - I sincerely am trying to reason this through...am currently studying DOSE, depth of illness and which potencies to give in relation to said illness (derangement of vital force)...blah blah blah...also have learned (from Organon) that it is imperative to presribe on CURRENT symptoms (TOTALITY)...so am wondering - does your current set of symptoms fit your 'constitutional'?
That is what I'm curious about. If you have taken this rem before - and it was your similimum at the time taken, previously, then wouldn't it stand to reason that your symptoms have changed (cured, healed some) as a result? Hence the picture has changed? Layers peeled away? Hence a possible need for a different remedy (depending, of course, on totality of picture)?

Or have I misunderstood? I appreciate your input...and welcome your comments on this. I am not well versed in this aspect (YET!)..and want to understand this.

This seems to be a point that many Homeopaths disagree on....and that is why I'm asking.

Also, GM, I would like your input as well...Anna, Frank? Others? who understand this part of prescribing?

Thanks guys!
Lisa

[This message has been edited by Lisa007 (edited 03 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lisa007 (edited 03 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lisa007 (edited 03 June 2000).]

Read Kent's 'The Second Prescription' in his Lectures and Lesser Writings for this.
Similia for Windows '95.

Each case should have, and probably does have, some peculiar symptoms; these
we are to get. These we must get; and out examination of a patient is
incomplete so long as we possess only a list of common and general symptoms.
It should be our task to question and examine the patient until such peculiar
symptoms are found. We hear much complaint of the insufficiency of out
Materia Medica, of the uselessness of our repertories, but most generally the
failure to prescribe correctly and even easily is not due to the want of good
books, but to this lack of careful and thoughtful examination of the patient.
Forget not this, that the greatest cures the world has ever witnessed have
been made by the earlier Homoeopaths with a much less complete library than
we now possess. After selecting the proper remedy, we must not forget that it
is of prime importance to give it in proper dose, and not to change too soon
not to repeat too frequently. Never change a remedy unless the changed
symptoms call for another; never repeat the dose (or change remedy) when the
patient is improving. For a fuller and a better understanding of the true
healing art, you are to study and to restudy the Organon. Our purpose in
these few remarks has not been to teach this art, but merely to call
attention to a few salient points; to give admonition upon a few prominent
features which cannot be too steadily kept in view.

And elsewhere...

When a patient returns and upon examination you find the old symptoms still
there although the patient says that he or she feels much better, that is not
the time for repeating the dose. It is only a question of time when a cure
will result. When a patient returns and says that he is losing ground, then
it is the remedy that has ceased to act, not the potency. Now you need to
hunt up another remedy and not a change of potency. Remember that these
things are not as yet matters of law but simply the results of some
observation. I have always been interested in experiments and observations
upon this question, and there is a great deal of work for all of us to do in
this field.


[This message has been edited by Frank Hicks (edited 03 June 2000).]

Read up on Boenninghausen regarding this, he has a list over things to watch, that you need to memorize, it will help in finding the rigth procedure.
I use this, and find it to be utterly correct!