otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Homeopathy Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 30th October 2002, 08:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 97
Sheilanne
Post

Hi

Does anyone have any recommendations on easing the irritations caused by Blepharitis (itching of eyelids)?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 31st October 2002, 01:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,568
Snoopy is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Try sulphur 30C.

Snoopy
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 31st October 2002, 05:08 AM
Austin Powers's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In my Jag
Posts: 174
Austin Powers
Post

To prescribe on a single symptom is forbidden in Homeopathy. Please have your case properly assessed. It needs to be determined if this is an acute (doubtful) or a chronic case. And a Homeopath would need more information than just one single symptom to properly prescribe, otherwise it leads to suppression which is not good. Prescribing on a single symptom is not homeopathy or homeopathic - it is the same as allopathic prescribing.
Good luck.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 31st October 2002, 05:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,568
Snoopy is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Sheilanne,
If you want to give us more information, go to the topic, "Questionnaire" and answer the questions pertaining to the chief complaint.

Snoopy
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 2nd November 2002, 04:54 PM
gpm gpm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Treetop
Posts: 886
gpm
Post

I have no idea if prescribing on a single symptom is forbidden in homeopathy but have had situations where there was only one symptom to use. For example a friend called late one night that her cat was leaking what appeared clear, plain water from the anus. Told her to use Apis. Condition stopped very quickly. Cat otherwise had no apparent (to caregiver, though I would think the condition was due to a chronic disease) symptoms. Besides, it was the middle of the night and long case taking wasn't something I wanted to do nor would the caregiver been interested in a long session! This was well over 2 years ago and cat remains in very good health with no seeming residual effects (and no recurrences) of having prescribed on one symptom. It is necessary, or should I say, unavoidable, to prescribe on one symptom when dealing in the moment with animals and wildlife for whom you have no history or background.
__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 2nd November 2002, 06:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,568
Snoopy is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Dear gpm,

Austin says there was only one symptom, actually there were two. One was the inflamation, two was the itching. It would have been better if we could have known what made it better or worse. Maybe Sheilanne will get back to us and tell us what happened. But, I know what you mean. There are times when you're just not going to get a complete case for one reason or another, and we can't live in fear of homeopathy and prescribe nothing when the obvious remedy may have helped.
It's like not giving Arnica because you don't have a complete case, all you know is that someone was injured. Or maybe all you know is that someone has food poisoning, so you say try Arsenicum, and you have no idea if it's going to work, but I can't imagine being such a perfectionist that I wouldn't prescribe and at least give the patient a shot at recovering. And, you know, if it doesn't work, you just try the next most likely remedy, it's not the end of the world.

Snoopy
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 2nd November 2002, 08:15 PM
gpm gpm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Treetop
Posts: 886
gpm
Post

Sure, complete and thorough case taking is the proper way but if a quick question is asked and it is pretty certain a remedy stands out as the most likely to relieve and the questioner hasn't presented additional information, even seems disinclined to go into detail, I see no harm in suggesting a remedy based on the single question asked. Providing it isn't something terribly more serious than itching eyelids! It isn't uncommon for many people to pull away if you begin "taking a case". What I have seen happen many times is that a person just wants an answer....now. You can go into a long diatribe about the whole picture, they won't put the effort into it. It seems to us they should want to and be happy to do so but the vast majority of people are not accustomed to being that involved and have no idea what on earth difference it makes if they prefer red over green. About the most you can hope for in such cases is the color of the discharge or something like that. At least the people who post questions on the BB have enough knowledge to have gotten this far. Whole bunches of people out there that have never heard of homeopathy.

The upside of suggesting without a lot of case taking (preferably for a non-life threatening situation!) is those who have been helped may be sparked to learn a little more, eventually understanding the need to participate and become good homeopathic patients. It's easier with animals, generally. People will put more effort into it if asked questions or require history, etc. A lot of people seek homeopathic care for themselves after first having seen results with a pet. I'm sure the same goes for other therapies like acupuncture. My cats and horses were acupunctured before I ever was. (Their acupuncturist was far superior to mine!) They have been to chiropractors, I haven't. I know this to be the case as I've seen it first hand. Give the caregiver's hip dysplasia dog Rhus Tox or Bry, they see the improvement and even though they've never heard of homeopathy before, they become interested (amazed) and consequently make appointments with a real homeopath. Another recent event was a dog diagnosed with bone cancer. She was about immobile and could barely breathe, vet advice was amputate or euthanasia. I gave her a few remedies, the dog so improved that the caregiver also made an appointment with a homeopath. Neither of these recent cases would have ever sought out homeopathy, would not have given me anything resembling a *full case* (sincerely, not to imply I would have known what to do had they) and I used a few simple, ordinary/common symptoms to prescribe. When there was improvement, I told them that if I could help them, just think what a real homeopath might do. Now these folks not only have their pets but themselves visiting a homeopath.

Sometimes the path between two points isn't a straight line.
__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 3rd November 2002, 01:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 866
Chris Gillen is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Hello,

The essence of true homoeopathic healing means the true source of the problem needs to be treated. If you don't take a full case, how do you know what it is and who it is you are treating. A full case may take 3 minutes or it may take 1 hour to 2 days to understand. Like it or not, tiresome as it may be to read, in Chronic Diseases Hahnemann states the real cause of many (non-venereal) ailments to be of psoric origin. He came to this conclusion after noting how some acute ailments and reoccuring chronic ailments were not able to be permanently removed by the application of well-chosen homoeopathic medicines. This is why he dug a lot deeper and developed his list of anti-psoric homoeopathic medicines that were specifically aimed at permanently, rapidly and gently curing these reoccuring conditions.

In the first few early editions of the Organon the emphasis is on treating by symptom similarity alone. In the last 2 editions of the Organon Hahnemann had taken homoeopathic cure to new levels by careful investigation of the miasmatic nature of chronic diseases. Following these teachings - which is the duty of all homoeopaths - means that conditions are not suppressed, that other organ systems are not compromised, that the integrity of the Vital Force is not compromised, and that any new symptoms occuring after the supposed cure of a local ailment are not just seen as some non-related disease that happened out of nowhere. Hahnemann lists in some 15 pages in Chronic Diseases the connection between the suppression of 'itch' and secondary major illnesses.

It is not our jobs to deliver quick fixes. It is our jobs to pursue true homoeopathic healing to the best of our ability. When rapid cures occur, we're not surprised, when they don't occur as quickly as we'd like it simply means the true nature of the ailment requires more investigation. Why should we involve ourselves with superficial treatments and deny the real potential of homoeopathic cure by substandard case-taking, and substandard prescriptions?

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 3rd November 2002, 04:45 AM
Austin Powers's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In my Jag
Posts: 174
Austin Powers
Post

This was not an emergency situation where something needed to be given NOW. No, it's not the end of the world, but it's also not our body and we don't have to live with the consequences should they go seriously awry either, do we.

gpm, in the Organon Hahnemann talks about allopathic versus homeopathic prescribing - and how the allopaths prescribe on disease names (single symptoms) - to put it roughly - and how harmful it was. I don't disagree with much of what you said - sometimes there isn't time when there is an emergency and we hope we know enough Materia Medica in our heads to be able to think of what is really needed.....and we hope that it doesn't cause any harm. But why take shortcuts and risk harming anyone when it is obvious there isn't a pressing urgency to take something NOW? Or do you think it's really okay to resort to the pressure when patients demand a quick fix (I'm not saying this patient demanded a quick fix....this isn't my point). Here is what Hahnemann says (it is not the only place in the Org where he talks about this):

Quote:
7 footnote 4
In all times, the old school physicians, not knowing how else to give relief, have sought to combat and if possible to suppress by medicines, here and there, a single symptom from among a number in diseases-a one-sided procedure, which, under the name of symptomatic treatment, has justly excited the universal contempt, because by it, not only was nothing gained, but much harm was inflicted. A single one of the symptoms present is no more the disease itself than a single foot is the man himself. This procedure was so much the more reprehensible, that such a single symptom was only treated by an antagonistic remedy (therefore only in an enantiopathic and palliative manner), whereby, after a slight alleviation, it was subsequently only rendered all the worse.
The same kind of prescribing can happen, and unfortunately does happen, with Homeopathic remedies that are not applied homeopathically (therefore they are not homeopathic to the case..therefore one is not practising homeopathy...therefore.....).

In other words, homeopathically prepared remedies are only homeopathic to a case when applied homeopathically. Just because a remedy is homeopathically prepared does not mean it cannot be used allopathically (suppressively). Hahenmann talks about this throughout the Org - beginning with 23 - around 59 covers all this, if you're interested to read up on why I felt it was important to post in the first place.

If remedies are used to 'give some relief' on a single symptom, yes yes yes it can most certainly be harmful. Unless one is just lucky. Why try luck? [I guess this could be another thread: whether or not remedies can be harmful -- some people claim remedies are not harmful and some say they are. Someone said -was it Hahnemann?-somewhere "that which can heal can also harm" Does anyone remember who said this?]

Using Sulph for one or two symptoms without knowing anything else about this patient is allopathic prescribing. What else would it be?

Even knowing what made the two symptoms better or worse would not ensure this would be a homeopathic prescription. We have to do the work if we are going to prescribe don't we? This isn't an opinion. It's a matter of being responsible the way I see it.
Chris has covered deeper [excellent] reasons which support why we shouldn't prescribe like this.

So, no, we can't just prescribe on one or two symptoms to 'give relief'. It's irresponsible when we could take more initiative to do it properly, and it is possibly very harmful, gpm. There are many remedies which contain itching eyes and simply put, we need to know more information or we increase the risk of harm to any patient. Do you now understand why I posted?

No matter who posted Sulph - I would have said the same thing. So Snoopy, I hope you keep your cheery dispositon and sense of humour - it wasn't personal.

[ 03. November 2002, 06:05: Message edited by: Austin Powers ]
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 3rd November 2002, 09:50 PM
Ricky's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Northern England
Posts: 2,087
Ricky is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Just to get right back to the original post Euphrasia Mother Tincture diluted 1 drop to 10 mls of cold boiled water really does soothe itching eyes !!!! Always the first line of treatment.
__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 AM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2