A pregnant acquaintance has just confessed that she is smoking cannabis VERY heavily during her pregnancy. She already has a toddler of reasonable health, so assumes it will do no harm ( she smoked throughout 1st pregnancy and breastfeeding also). I would imagine this would have dire consequences on their vital force. I am trying to urge her towards homeopathy to perhaps help with this addiction and also to help the child/ unborn baby. Does any-one have any advice on this topic??? Are there rubrics to cover residual cannabis effects in infants???? Or would treating the child /baby when born with their constitutional simillum be best??? Or is it best to wait until some disturbance manifests itself and treat accordingly. I know homeopathy should not be used as a 'preventative', however, can it be used to try and eliminate the damage that has probably already been done??? I am very concerned about the impact on these innocent children's health.

1) Hello Caroline,

Absolutely right you are. Please give your friend a rough scolding from my side, to mess up her child's health with that nonsense. Every medic nowadays should know that and how cigarette smoke during pregnancy harms the poor worm, not to speak of worse things...

I bet she will have symptoms herself from that habit already.
One trick from one homoeopath who got a number of patients for treatment who had no idea that their smoking that stuff had any relation to their current symptoms which they were seeking help for:
He read them or made them read typical symptoms from the Materia Medica for ... ( covering the header, so they could not see what it was ), and after they had been surprised and confirmed it described them, he disclosed the remedy:
'starts with "C" ...

- And note that in a small worm that effect is multiplied of course.

The initial problem may be to convince your friend that she has quite a problem herself, both physical and then psychological; because with heavy smoking that stuff, and not giving a damn for her own offspring, it is not just a small not-so-optimal habit any more, but a serious condition she herself is in. But people then tend to harbour the illusion that
(a) it is nothing really, and
(b) they could in principle stop it anytime, since it is their own free decision, they think ...

Treating anyone of the two until the habit has gone does not make any sense.
Because the child would get kicked again and again, even after birth, via milk and smoke from the air.
And any homoeo-remedy will probably NOT work anyway, because of the drug which she is inhaling, as it is going to block the action.

I described a case with that effect in one other thread
( -> "Need help", started by one "Shirl" on Feb 12th; my post No.2), towards the end ),
which you can read if interested; 'was an interesting observation, and the homoeopath who reported it is a very good one indeed, so I rely on his reports.

[ 03. March 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

Funny this topic should be posted, we were just discussing this over the weekend.

Apparently pot is smoked quite a bit in the Caribean while being pregnant and post pregnancy as well. It is used as anti-nausea and in pain management.

According to people within the discussion, studies could not indicate any dire concequences as a result. I can't say for sure, but perhaps do a google search for more information.

We are programmed in the modern world to view any supposed "recreational" drugs as bad, addictive and conflictive to productive lifestyles, however there are many cultures out there that tell a very different tale. Frequency and tolerance is also a big factor.

You may want to do more research before you jump down this poor lady's throat.

2) ...cont....

Once the poisoning is stopped, the mother would best be treated herself. Everything which is not right with her wholistic body-psyche-mind system is going to affect the baby anyway.

Homoeopathy is often - and rightly - praised as the most gentle and hence ideal form of medical treatment for pregnancy
- On the condition of course that the treatment is done by an experienced and most careful professional, best working in tandem or cooperation with those who care for the expecting mother in other regards, to avoid confusion and conflicting measures/treatments.

If you find such good professional, and an experienced one who can also deal with the psychol. factors here during consultation, and has some, nay a good degree of "natural authority" ...

( you may ask well-connected British members of this board; I guess that Ricky and Lisa Annan may be able to recommend one, as I know they had done or offered in other cases; provided there is a real will on the side of the patient-in-obvious-need, so that they do not waste their time; you could try to contact them via private message;
that is my estimate, and I mention it here quickly because I wish that poor worm well,
but it would be up to you and the ladies concerned of course )

...then that professional would have to face the decision of their strategy.

Don't you even consider for a single moment to do that yourself, with board people's recommendations secretly mixed into your friend's soft drinks or such games ! You would continue experimenting on the "rabbit", would you not ?!
Sorry for being so blunt, and this is just in case you thought you might with the best of your intention..., but spending a few weeks only visiting this board you come accross a lot of things, and what people think and do, so sadly that is already from experience with homoeo-onlining...

[ 03. March 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

3) "Reasonable health", as a description from a lay person, who has an obvious interest that that may be the case, and would have a real problem if she had to admit, first to herself, that she may have caused harm, is simply nothing to go by; would you bet on this ?
Perhaps she had relatively good health to start with, and less of an inherited load than others, who knows ?
And what is "reasonable" here, or in her opinion ? Not caughing all the day, not in hospital with chronic disease ?
And even if it were a doctor's assessment:
What sort of children do they see, to compare with ?
And above all you simply cannot know or say before a long time has passed wether it did have an effect, or wether not. It is nothing but idiotic to rely on that wished-for hypothesis "it does not harm" on the basis of that little bit of "evidence". If you don't want to see a thing, you do not see it.
I wish the children I'd be wrong, over-cautious etc.
But with that information in mind, a number of patients needed treatment after adult age intoxication with cannabis, and they felt so themselves ( only could not see the connection ), I would never buy any claim a smoking embryo gets away with it unharmed.
How many cig. smokers knew and know for sure it is completely safe what they use to do ? And if you were the deciding representative of a health ensurance firm, what would you base your decisions on ?

[ 04. March 2003, 10:19: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

4) I make it clear that "conventional" drugs are not healthy or harmless either.
A child with tabacco or alcohol consumption won't be happy with that either.

Hahnemann wrote a whole treatise against coffee and its harmful effects, stupid old controlling uncle that he was. With a good routine number of cups every day you give your baby a series of crude stuff provings also. Perhaps they develop an early inclination for a job in the medical field then ?

5) Re: Your ideas of possible ways to employ homoeopathy here.

As I wrote that must be the job of the treating homoeopath only.

This question was about one specific case, so any speculation about drugs and culture in general is out of place here and would equal to abusing this space.

I have not heard of anyone trying to eliminate poisoning by such drugs in an isopathic way ( compare "Lead in baby's blood" ). It may or may not work.
Effects of strong allo-drugs ( "anti-biosis" )are often cleared out with remedies like sulphur , nux vomica and others, acc. to s.s.
I once read about an Indian medical study employing nux v. to get rats rid of experimentally induced alc. addiction; but in the journal where I read this study reviewed it was torn into pieces on methodological grounds, i.e. how they did and documented it was hopelessly below any generally accepted standarts ( I am speaking about this particular study only ).

As I wrote above, the poisoning has to stop first.
Then you can treat the mother.
Thatz in itself is a form of "prevention", with regard to the baby. Hahnemann spoke of a form of "pre-birht healing" with his antimiasmatic "eugenic cures".
I do not see any room for blind prescibing for "cannabis intoxication in utero".

And after the child is born, you can treat the child as well.

If you ever read a good textbook of homoeopathy you know pretty well that nobody is completely healthy, with all inheritance of chronic stuff etc; starting early, with highest quality, gives the best start a human can have.

I don't like that term "const. simillimum", because it is so vague ( and a late invention anyway ). Chronic and acute remedies will have to be chosen according to the rules of the art. I do not see any reason to further speculate on these here.

Regards,
Panthera

[ 03. March 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

Dear Panthera,
Thankyou for your detailed and prompt reply - I appreciate your view-point. Do not worry, I can assure you that I would NOT attempt this case myself, as I am well aware of my inexperience and limitations. Unfortunately when my friend asked me for advice, I did not have either the expertise or knowledge to advise her. Hence, my posting to BB. I shall take your advise and try to encourage her to refrain from her habit, at least until breastfeeding is over. I agree with your 3rd point...and 'reasonable health' was her vague description of her child. They live in Scotland, so I can not verify this first-hand as contact is limited. I have managed to source 2 classical homeopaths locally to her, and I shall pass on details.

Dear Kkrista, thankyou also for your comments. Do not worry either, I am actually quite liberal minded and diplomatic.......I will not be 'jumping down her throat'. I am concerned for her families welfare, and I am responding to her conscience and her fear of long-term health consequences in her children. I appreciate cultural differences in attitudes to cannabis - however her use is FAR from recreational. The sheer amount of stuff she is smoking alarmed me most. I have already done a google search a few days ago - but it is surprising how little information and research there is on this topic. I did come across a document suggesting a link between maternal cannabis smoking and childhood leukemia. (It would be interesting to know if there was a higher incidence of leukemia in countries were mothers smoking cannabis was more common).

There are types of cannabis grown nowadays (here anyway) that have been deliberately grafted to be chemically stronger and more toxic than the stuff people of my generation smoked 20 or more years ago. What was considered a 'harmless joint' for us back then is different now. It could be that in places like the Carribean a less potent kind is grown and used?

6)

/ www.homeoint.org/hering/c/cann-i.htm

- www.homeoint.org/hering/c/cann-s.htm

// www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/c/cann-i.htm

-- www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/c/cann-s.htm

/// www.homeoint.org/clarke/c/can_ind.htm

--- www.homeoint.org/clarke/c/can_sat.htm

//// www.homeoint.org/allen/c/cann-i.htm

---- www.homeoint.org/allen/c/cann-s.htm

///// www.homeoint.org/kent/c/cann-i.htm

----- www.homeoint.org/kent/c/cann-s.htm

>>>>>> www.homeoint.org/illustr/c/cann-s.htm