In response to bb subject combination remedies. All are requested to comment:

Let’s take a case to understand:-

One patient came to your clinic …… complained about his disease ….. you examined him …… took all 12 symptoms ……you repertorized the case ……got three closely matched remedies (Hahnemann said it medicine aphorism 169 ……selection of medicine) ……your one remedy (1st choice) has 5 symptoms ……second remedy (2nd choice) has 4 symptoms and third remedy (3rd choice) has 3 symptoms.

When you did not find any similar remedy which present true picture of patient’s complain …… rather similar to patient’s symptoms …… as in this case then you have no choice to prescribe the most closely matched (1st choice) remedy …… as the patient is suffering from some disease …… homoeopathy has no remedy for it which similar to symptoms …… rather no proving is available for this kind of patient …… We have to treat and help the patient in getting out of his problem. (Organon aphorism # 1 and 169)

Here remember one major point on which this discussion is based:

a. The remedy you prescribed is not the remedy of the patient due to the shortage / insufficient of medicine / remedies (#169).

It is true that there are millions of symptoms / diseases discovered so for and we have only 3000(approx) remedies for them. Please allow me to say that our only 300 remedies have results out of 3000. Rest of them no result in many cases even selecting right remedy for the patient. Out of 3000 …… there are only 33(approx) polychrest remedies ……maximum of them proved by great great Hahnemann. This is another topic and I reserved the right to give my comment in future …… if any member commented on this topic …… which is not the topic of discussion.

Now the patient came back after taking your prescribed remedy and told you that he is feeling well ……you observed that the patients main symptoms are gone for which you have prescribed 1st closely matched remedy ……Now you will prescribe 2nd choice remedy for removing rest of the patient’s symptoms (aphorism # 169)……But here Hahnemann suggested that you should exam in the patient and took all his symptoms again (may be some addition of symptoms) and then prescribe the remedy which closely matched (aphorism # 169).

Hahnemann used the word “symptoms that then remain” …… This is the most and most clear cut experimental result …… he has obtained and very rightly mentioned in his aphorism # 169 of Organon ……that you will not prescribe 2nd gp of remedies for rest of the remaining symptoms but you will have to take the symptoms again and then prescribe next remedy.

Here it is quite possible you observed nothing special in the patient and that your next remedy is the same remedy which was previously standing at 2nd position (choice). Here one crucial point may come to every sensible mind that :-

b. Is the 1st given remedy ……which was not similar to patient’s symptoms ……could remove some patient’s symptoms …… which he was complaining for ……and although symptoms are found in respective 1st choice remedy’s description in material medica ……but actually the remedy was not similar to the patient’s symptoms????

You all ……must answer here first ……in “YES” or “NO” ……then I will explain it further …… waiting for answer ……

Dr.MAS (Pakistan)
Programmer of DR.MAS (Free) Computer Software displayed on this website too.
drmastalk@doctor.com

Dr. Mas,
U seem to be confusing a "Series of medicines" with a "Combination of medicines". Both are very different concepts. Check the dictionary meaning of "Combination"!

"§ 272 Fifth Edition
In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time.1
1 Some homœopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy homœopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.
§ 273 Sixth Edition
In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple1 medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs. It is absolutely not allowed in homœopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substance.
1 Two substances, opposite to each other, united into neutral Natrum and middle salts by chemical affinity in unchangeable proportions, as well as sulphurated metals found in the earth and those produced by technical art in constant combining proportions of sulphur and alkaline salts and earths, for instance (natrum sulph. and calcarea sulph.) as well as those ethers produced by distillation of alcohol and acids may together with phosphorus be considered as simple medicinal substances by the homœopathic physician and used for patients. On the other hand, those extracts obtained by means of acids of the so-called alkaloids of plants, are exposed to great variety in their preparation (for instance, chinin, strychnine, morphine), and can, therefore, not be accepted by the homœopathic physician as simple medicines, always the same, especially as he possesses, in the plants themselves, in their natural state (Peruvian bark, nux vomica, opium) every quality necessary for healing. Moreover, the alkaloids are not the only constituents of the plants."
I understood that HepSulph was the first "combination remedy" ie,combining 2 substances. I also understand that modern interpretation of "combination remedy" to be combining 2 or more simple remedies such as Rumex and Spongia etc for over the counter quick fixes.
So perhaps we need to clarify interpretation of the term combination. Words change meaning over time and distance.

Dr. MAS seems to have got it all wrong.

Similar remedy does not mean that throughout the case only one remedy would be indicated or given. The simillimum can keep on changing from time to time as the symptoms change. For example, Aconite may need Sulphur or any other suitable remedy to complete its favourable action in a case of inflammatory fever. So both the remedies were similar, not concurrently but at different times and it cannot be termed as "combination practice"!

In Aphorism # 273, Hahnemann categorically prohibits dispensation of "mixtures" and "combinations". However, naturally occurring combinations such as Causticum, Nat Sulph, etc., are exceptions and for good reason.


------------------
Ghazi

For instance dont give the judgement in right or wrong.

Just give the answer that the remedy which is not similar to patient's symtpoms could remove symptoms?

Before giving the answer. All are requested to read my first message again.

Dr Mas, I confess I am puzzled by what you are trying to say. Just reading your first post, though, you say that the first prescription was "not similar" to the patient's symptoms, but in fact you said it matched 5 of the patient's 12 symptoms. However, whether you call it "similar" or not depends to my mind on whether the symptoms were mentals, generals or physicals; common or uncommon. Prescribing depends on so much more than adding numbers. So I don't think the answer to your question can be a yes or no. Perhaps you could explain what you are getting at?

Dr. Bhatia ! You used to write a quotation in which you emphasized on courage to accept things, which are there. But sorry Sir! You himself have not the courage to accept certain things which are there. You have not yet showed courage for answering two questions a & b (mentioned above).

Although you himself has the habit of prescribing other (near to similar) remedies when you did not find any exact similar remedy according to patient. (My Hope)

Just give the answer. When you can't find any remedy, which really present the true drug picture of patient's symptoms. Then do you prescribe that remedy which is although, not similar but near to similar. As Hahnemann did, due to the insufficient no of known medicines (Aphorism # 169)

I have seen many practioner, when they do practice, they have a different point of view and when they were asked to talk on homoeo philosophy or rules and regulations, they have different point of view.

I personally against the combination remedies. But what can I do when Hahnemann himself used combinations and permitted combination practice on limited basis and also defined rules. i.e when, where and how to prescribe combinations.


------------------

ozzie!
The aphorism 169 comes first and 272 or 273 come later on.

So first of all understand 169 and then go to next.

Read the aphorism 169 by placing all other aside.

Wexdoc!

Now I will ask the question in other way.
A patient came to your clinic with some complains. For example You have no remedies for him due to the insufficient medicines in homoeopathy. (Hahnemann accepted this in aphorism # 169. Please read first). What will you do?

1. send him back to home.
2. will prescribe next best remedy which is near to his symptom (may cover 5 out of 12 he complain) but not similar one.

[This message has been edited by DR.MAS (edited 12 February 2001).]

Dear Dr. Mas,
Thanks for making an individual post for me.

Firts U answer a question..
What do U mean by the word "COMBINATION"???

Now read my replies...

1. First of all there is no medicine which is EXACTLY(100%) similar to any one person. If that had been the case one medicine would have worked on just one person and we would have to prove 6 billion medicines for the humanity because no two persons are all alike. So, since the time of Hahnemann, everyone(including Hahnemann) has prescribed the "MOST SIMILAR"(and not exactly similar) remedy AVAILABLE in the chest.

2. so there is no doubt that I will not send the patient U have mentioned home, but would prescribe the most similar remedy that I can find or I have. BUT HOW DOES AN IMPERFECTLY SIMILAR REMEDY CAN BE CALLED A "COMBINATION" IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION. please enligten us.

3. In your first post what U have mentioned is that once a medicine has partially removed the symptoms, whether to give the next best med found in original analysis or to take the case afresh and re-repertorize. Well! What's the point in this question, I can't make out. It has always been a standard to take the case afresh when symptoms change or are parially removed by one med. And there is nothing wrong in using a "series of medicines" if a med similar enough or deep enough to remove all the complaints can not be found. BUT STILL IN THIS CASE TOO EACH MED IS GIVEN SINGELY AT A TIME. SO HOW IT BECOMES A "COMBINATION" IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION.

3 U have said "Although you himself has the habit of prescribing other (near to similar) remedies when you did not find any exact similar remedy according to patient."
"I have seen many practioner, when they do practice, they have a different point of view and when they were asked to talk on homoeo philosophy or rules and regulations, they have different point of view."

PLEASE DON'T BE SO COURAGEOUS TO TALK ABOUT MY PRACTISE WHEN U DON'T EVEN KNOW ME OR THE WAY I PRACTISE. I practise what I preach.

4. Hahnemann has never advocated the use of combinations(read 272). U seem to be very confused regarding the interpretation of Hahnemann's text and U are doing the same to others. Get yourself an english tutor or buy the urdu edition of organon.

5. And lastly, I did not "Used to" add that quotation. I still do, whenever I feel like it. And it's not a quotation, it's a prayer.


------------------
GOD grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change, The COURAGE to change the things I can, And the WISDOM to know the Difference.