As was quoted to me by my teacher recently, paragraph 52 from The Organon [Decker trans.]

"There are just two main modes of medical treatment, the homoeopathic and the allopathic. The homoeopathic mode bases all that it does on the exact observation of nature, careful experimets and pure experience. It has never, before me, been intentionally applied. The allopathic (or heteropathic) mode does not do this. Each mode is diametrically opposed to the other. Only a person who does not know both could surrneder to the delusion that they could ever approach one another, let alone ever let themselves be united. Only such a person could make himself so ridiculous as to practice sometimes homoeopathically and sometimes allopathically, according to the pleasure of the patient. Sucah a practice may be called a treasonous betrayal of divine homoeopathy."

Please note, these are not my words, they are Hahnemann's.

My dear Anna,

Obviously you have NO IDEA what is the difference between Th Modern MEdicine of today and the "allopathy" practiced in Hahnemann's time.

The need for cooperation between the two systems of medicine has nothing to do with a "surrneder to the delusion that they could ever approach one another, let alone ever let themselves be united".

IT has to do with the choices a patient today has to make. Modern medicien being a dominant school of medicine does not give a patient a choice to get a superior treatment. At the same time, let us not be BLIND to the fact that Modern Medicine today SAVES LIVES, in all its inadequacies. And it is VERY inadequate.

Lets get a little more broadminded and reach a higher level of thinking, for the sake of humanity, as homoeopathy as a science is always attempting do! WE need to open our hearts to the need of suffering people rather than debate whether we are betraying the science of homoeoapthy or not. That judgement , we can leave to God and to our consciences.

Just because a patient is dependent on Modern Medicine, it does not mean that they cannot benefit from "divine Homoeopathy". But do YOU have the competence to handle a patient in this way?


Hahnmann said RIGHT, and he said it in a particular context, so lets keep that context in mind while we reinterpret his words. Rather than hide behind him.

Regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Well stated, Dr. Leela!

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Karin and Doctorlella, you both need be commended not only for your depth of knowledge and caring for people who need help but being so oped-minded about homeopathy and other health systems. God bless you for your talents and please continue the good work.

Warmly,

Mahavir

The science of homoeopathy as set out in The Organon is not contextual, it is natural law made medicine. That is why Hahnemann's homoeopathy is irrevocable.

Paragraph 53 of The Organon goes on to state:
"True, gentle cures only take place in a homoeopathic way which, as we have found through experience and deduction, is incontestably the correct way. It is the way in which one attains the cure of diseases most certainly, rapidly and permanently, by means of art, because this curative mode rests upon an eternal, infallible natural law. The PURE HOMOEOPATHIC [Hahnemann's emphasis] curative mode is the only correct one, this single most direct curative way possible by means of human art, as certainly as ther is only one single straight line possible between two given points.

Further, in para 54
The allopathic mode of treatment has reigned since time immemorial, appearing in many differnt forms, called systems. it undertoook many different things against disease but always only improper ones. Each of these systems, following one form or another from time to time and deviating quite a lot from one another, honoured itesf with the name of rational medical art...etc

Hahnemann goes on to say how all the allopathic medical systems base their methods on the idea of materia peccans. Modern medicine is no different in this respect. As one reads further para 54 it is evident that the principles of the two systems are as opposed as ever, and the objections that Hahnemann held against allopathy apply today.

Lippe, whose level of certainty in prescribing I cited above, never used any medicine other than homoeopathy in his practice, and had wonderful success. His work was a testament to what can be achieved by a practitioner dedicated to following Hahnemann's method.

Thank you Divina and Mahavir.

I really appreciate your support. The complementay working of both Systems of Medicine may be a present day necessity.

Warm regards,
doctorleela

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: doctorleela ]</p>

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Dear Anna,

I agree with you about true cure being established through homoeopathic means, but I don't think it's my role to dictate to a patient which medical discipline they should use. Let's face it, they or the dominant medical system do that anyway. Certainly I'll always put forward a good case for homoeopathic treatment, and I hope that actions speak louder than words.

I think we should think like allopath and treat like homeopath.

Great Hahnemann also did the same technique.

Chris and Dr. Leela have the right idea here--true, Hahnemann advises practitioners to use homeopathy alone--so go out and hone your skills in homeopathy, practice as prescribed, and get good at treating patients as a homeopath. Become extremely skilled in using homeopathy when you treat every patient--so you don't have to give herbs at the same time, or futz around with the latest nutrition theory, or figure out what kind of meditation technique to suggest, or write out a prescription for a steroid or antibiotic.

BUT...

Don't be a fool and say to people that you can't help them unless they drop their medical doctors and stop using their medical drugs completely. Don't chew out your patients because they turned to an analgesic when they were in great pain and the remedy didn't quite work for them...or they needed something to palliate the painful return of an old symptom...or whatever it is they feel they need to do to help themselves. Like Karin says, if the child's fever gets to 41C and the belladonna and aconite have not helped, the child should be given the suppressive med...it will get the child out of danger and buy you some time to find a better homeopathic remedy. Sticking by your homeopathic principles while the child gets sicker and sicker won't do you or your practice any good.

Let's face it: for socio-political reasons, many people ONLY know allopathic medicine--nothing else. They've been treated with it all their lives long, they don't know much about alternatives, and they turn to you for help because (as Leela correctly pointed out) allopathic medicine has some grave inadequacies. If you want to help your patient, you will learn to treat them while they undergo allopathic care they are too afraid to let go of.

It IS a matter of competency and capability: do you know how to treat this kind of patient, work with them and their other health care providers, and become part of a team of supporters who will work to restore the patient's health? Are you willing to make the patient feel secure by working with his or her doctors in a way which allows for the patient to become well again, while developing confidence in homeopathy? Can you prioritize helping that patient over being "correct" about being a homeopath?

Hahnemann's advice to us, as practitioners, stands. The reality of practice today includes facing the treatment of patients who are under the treatment of allopathic medicines they cannot immediately live without. You will have to respect that aspect of their cases, if you undertake to help them; you can't pretend their meds and their needs don't exist. If they come to you for help, and are willing to work with you, then you have to be willing to work with them too, and that often means using homeopathy alongside the allopathic treatments.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Thanks drleela and Divina for your comments. You have said it so much better than I did.

Regards,
Karin