Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have a question that does not leave my mind.

First, please allow me to describe why the question is on my mind and why I am confused:

When I was introduced to a Homeopath and Homeopathy I was ordered to take many different remedies within a very short time. At the same time I read a few books (simple books and more demanding books) on Homeopathy and finally we ended with about 100 remedies in our cupboard in LM 18 potency and also an emergency or travel Homeopathy kit containing 80 remedies in C 30 potency along with a little booklet describing the remedies in very short form and stating different ailments like sore throat, cuts, bruises, homesickness, ... indicating one or two remedies to treat each of the ailments.

So, the way we were introduced to Homeopathy, mostly by the Homeopath and the easy to read books who did it so differently than the more demanding books there was a time when we readily took a C 30 remedy whenever something felt a bit wrong. For example, I was instructed to try remedy after remedy for my headaches to eventually find the right one. The procedure was: try as many remedies as necessary till one helps.

Today I know that there is a difference between an acute situation and a deeper or chronic situation.

My friend (unfortunately) quit seeing our Homeopath after I had lost confidence in her. But she helped him living with his allergies and he gives her credit for this help. Now he takes a C 30 or an LM 18 of 'his remedies' when he experiences allergic symptoms like running nose or tears in his eyes and most of the time they even ease his situation. He never takes the Anti-Histamines any more. I do not comment this in any way because I honestly do not know what is good or what is bad, I am just happy that he can live without the allopathic Anti-Histamines.

With you here during the past year I experienced that you take much, much time and trouble to find one single remedy to take care of a person's problem. Again and again you advise not to take any remedy easily.

Last week my friend hurt himself and I, with a very bad conscience, advised him to take Arnica C 30, because within minutes he had developed a major "Haematom" (blue, red, and yellow patch on the skin, I am missing the right English word here and my dictionary does not know it either). I know that these Haematoms can cause problems due to blood clots that start travelling the blood stream and very long ago our Homeopath had advised us to take Arnica in the incident of a Haematom to prevent such blood clots from travelling and causing damage, even possible death.

Now, finally, my question: Would you say it is o.k. to take Arnica or the other so-called 'emergency' remedies like Staphisagria (cuts), Hypericum (cuts through nerves), Aconitum (shock and injuries) right away at once after an injury that is painful? This to me now seems to feel more like allopathy - seeing the disease, not the person, and prescribing a cure for the disease more than for the individual person.

Even worse, maybe people with very limited knowledge on Homeopathy should not decide on taking remedies at all in order to not mess up the patient and make him or her untreatable for a real Homeopath???

And (if the above is o.k.), actually there are two questions, would the same be o.k. for me in the case of injuries or would I, because Thuja C 200 is working inside me for a long time, better not take any other remedy, even if I cut or bruised myself?

So far, on myself, I have only used Calendula ointment for cuts that I had on my fingers. The ointment does not contain potentized Calendula so I, for myself, decided it would be safe.

I do hope my question does not sound silly and I would be very relieved if you could give me directions on how to treat these small injuries that happen to my friend and me in the future.

Any advice will be very much appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Bettina

(Come to think of it: major injuries would put me under still more emotional stress: I would be even more inclined to give or take Aconitum and Arnica if there would be a major accident happening to any of us two.)

Yes , Yes and another yes!!! In an acute situation like the type you describe please do feel free to take/give a suitable homeopathic remedy in a 30C and repeat it if needed. If I bruise myself badly I tend to take 4 doses of Arnica 30 in an hour. That way I know there will be no bruise and no shock to the system.

It is perfectly OK to take acute remedies EVEN if you are on a constitutional remedy because the acute remedy you take willbe used up by the acute situation.

I hope that answers your question.

By the way the word is haematoma so you were nearly there. I think you do remarkably well with your English and I feel so ashamed that I can't do anywhere near as well as you in another language!!

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Dear Bettina,

So many questions! I hope I remember them all.

For the average person who's not on a constitutional remedy, it's really a good idea to take an acute remedy--30C--to stop a trauma in its tracks: a head injury, burn, beginning of a flu or cold....You never know what horrible thing you may be preventing by giving an acute remedy. You may stop a cold that might have progressed to pneumonia without the remedy given early.

This is called etiological prescribing (sorry for the big word!) It means prescribing based on the cause--which is a legitimate form of homeopathic prescribing. If you know the cause of something, sometimes that's all you need to know. Barb has a post here about how she prescribed on nothing at all except that the patient had slept all night under the air conditioner! In homeopathy, "Ailments from Cold Dry Winds" is an etiology for Aconite. She said, "Give Aconite!" and the patient got better in short order.

Unfortunately, people who choose to take one dose of a high potency as their constitutional, really
tie themselves down to that remedy, and lose the flexibility to treat acutes with homeopathic remedies because of the possibility that one remedy will antidote the other. Even so, in a really serious emergency, like a head injury, yes, you really should take Arnica 30, repeat as needed--usually 3 times a day for a couple of days, but this is not a hard and fast rule, just a guideline.

The alternative to one-dose-high-and-wait chronic prescribing is daily low potency prescribing, which gives you the flexibility to treat acutes with homeopathy. You don't have to worry that your chronic remedy will be antidoted because you're going to take it again tomorrow! The idea is that you suspend the chronic remedy while the acute is active, give the acute remedy, and when it resolves, return to chronic treatment.

Snoopy

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

Snoopy - I have never found that acute prescribing affects a high potency, one dose constitutional remedy. This is how I usually prescribe unless someone has an ongoing allopathic medication that they have to take. Have you had experience of this personally? If it did there would be no problem in repeating the constitutional remedy in my opinion.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Dear Ricky,

I've found that homeopaths who are Kentian (One-dose-and-wait) prescribers generally get apoplectic when their patients innocently mention that they've treated an acute--Nux Vomica 30C, for instance, for a debilitating headache: "Oh, so now YOU want to be the doctor! Well, fine! I won't treat you anymore!" And, yes, surely you've heard these accounts from people who post here--that they've been yelled at for treating an acute.

The other thing about taking remedies when you're on a constitutional, if it hasn't kicked in yet, was it the wrong remedy or did you antidote it with your acute prescribing? You see lots of letters coming in here, people wondering if they've antidoted their remedy with one thing or another.

So, to me, anyway, this is just one of many advantages of daily low potency prescribing in chronic disease, the other being the avoidance of aggravations. Another advantage--I'm starting to see a number of incidences of remedies working in low potency--like Contenta's husband--and not working in high potency, and we've seen a number of miraculous cures with low potency on the BB lately, and I became so impressed with this, that, my daughter, for instance, who had a cold and missed 2 days of school last week...when she said her upper lip burned (from the nasal discharge, I assumed) I would usually give an Ars. 30 for this, instead I gave Ars. 6C with occassional repetitions, and darned if it didn't work! So, I really seriously wonder to what extent these high potencies are a bad habit we've gotten into--including myself.

Snoopy

There is a reason the low potencies work so well when the higher ones don't - they work on more generalised symptoms. You don't have to be so specific with the diagnosis, since large numbers of people will respond to Sulph 3c or Nat-mur 6x or whatever. This means that someone with less skill or experience, including the naturopaths, can appear to have some success with a small group of remedies.

That is not to say the low potencies do not cure or don't have their place. As Snoopy has rightly pointed out, people with long term serious pathology often benefit from daily repetition of low potencies or LM's.

But the low potencies, if they are acting upon the general picture instead of the specific one, will not cure, they will however palliate. Palliation is fine, but the patient is not being cured, and they will get sick again, and that remedy will eventually lose its ability to help.

Nat-mur 6x will often palliate cold sores. But if the cold sores are not specifically Nat-mur sores, in otherwords in a person that shows the peculiar characteristics of Nat-mur, then they will not be cured. But it will palliate even a Graphites or Sulphur or even Thuja person.

This makes low potencies suitable for the first- aid chest, but for many people they will never cure the deepest part of the case. A practitioner who falls into the habit of using only low potencies runs the risk of only ever palliating their patients, and quite likely suppressing the case - this is something I have seen in Naturopathic patients given low potency homoeopathy to take for many days on end, always repeating the remedy as the symptoms come back up, always suppressing it deeper into the organism.

Giving a low potency of the correct remedy may still cure a case. Giving a low potency of a remedy that is not correct, but is close will either palliate or suppress. That is the danger. Many remedies will help a case superficially when used at low potencies - but that is not what we are in the game for.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

To answer the question about using homoeopathy for injuries, there should be no problem for people to do that. If someone needs treatment, then do it. The thing is, you need to determine whether it reallys deserves the use of a remedy. Could the person cope without it? Yes? Then don't give a remedy. Is the person in alot of pain? Yes? Then give a remedy. If you didn't have any remedies at home, would you bother seeking treatment elsewhere? No, then don't give a remedy. Is the person in serious danger? Yes, then by all means, try a remedy.

The only thing you have to be careful of is suppressing an aggravation from a remedy prescribed for the person. If you have just been to a homoeopath, and a week later you get a cold or flu, even if everyone else has got one, don't use a new remedy. Your vital force may use the epidemic to balance things out.

There are reasons so many homoeopaths freak out when people use first-aid remedies - many homoeopaths lack confidence treating acutes, so I think their view is coloured by that. But, another reason is that people mistake aggravations for acutes, and end up suppressing them.

It is almost impossible to antidote a well selected curative remedy. I have only once ever seen this happen, in a patient who went to the dentist. But I suspect now, after further treatment, that she had not had the correct remedy yet - the gas antidoted the palliative effect of the remedy. A first aid prescription will not "ruin" your remedy - it will certainly reveal that you are not cured yet.

[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: DavidJK ]</p>

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Perhaps some homeopaths who treat 'constitutionally' will not prescribe for actues...perhaps some of them will prescribe and freak when their patients self-prescribe (understandably in some situations)..but that is not the case with my homeopath who prescribes on constitution.

Which leads me to say this: Perhaps the definition (and this has been discussed before -ages ago) of constitution isn't the same for everyone.

Recently, my daughter had an acute..I figured out the acute rem...and then later rang my Homeopath...and all was okay (with the rem choice..she healed nicely..my homeopath was happy with the results, etc)..and my daughter was on a constitutional dose shortly before the acute (about 2 weeks prior) as well...
We didnt'rush to re-dose her with her 'constitutional'...why? because there has been no indication too!!!!!!!! We will only re-dose if the symptoms indicate that she needs one (or another remedy).

Just don't want everyone to get the over-simiplified impression that those who use 'constitutional' prescribing ONLY do it 'one' way. I.E. after an acute..re-dose with one's constitutional.

Oh, and someone said recently that using one's 'constitutional' can take care of acutes... Well, I haven't seen that work EXCEPT when the symptoms repped out to that remedy. (in other words - their 'constitutional' remedy happened to be indicated by the symptoms)

Bettina, if you cut yourself..or have had some sort of injury, then by all means treat it with a low potency if you are reasonably sure which remedy to take..otherwise you can post here and ask for help with acute prescribing.

If you have a cold - that is a wee bit different, as David explained above...and that is something I wouldn't necessarily seek treatment for, unless it was unbearable - and even then, I wouldn't treat it myself, because as David pointed out one can easily misinterpret their own symptoms and what is happening in the overall picture of things and end up supressing their symptoms causing greater harm...or messing up the case. I think colds are a bit different than injuries and accidents anyway...

So, for true acutes - sure - treat them..but be sure it is an acute... §72 and onwards explains all this if you are interested.
Lisa

[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]</p>

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

For what it is worth if I get a cold I treat it with Vit.C, Echinacea and Zinc and it is normally over in a couple of days. I don;t feel that this is suppression but just plain sensible. I wouldn't dream of using a remedy as it is healthy to get the odd common cold to get rid of toxins.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Dear Ricky,
dear Snoopy,
dear David,
dear Lisa,

thank you all very much for the explanations and clarifications, I am very grateful for your assistance and thank you for the time and effort that you invested for me.

For me a big question has been answered now.

Bettina