Kkrista,
We all study the fundamentals. At least we're all taught to do so.
Whether we all study like Hans explained is a different thing.
Also I don't think the debate should be that Homeopathy needs to ne modernized. And also that does not mean one should not explore the boundaries of percieving the similimum.

I do appreciate HAns explaining his method of study of the MAteria Medica. It is useful and often important to be guided by stong characteristic physicals of a remedy when making the decision on a remedy. I have to wonder which homeopath does not do that?
And for animals its even more important to be able to recognize these PQRS sympotms to prescribe.

The bulk of good Indian homeopaths give importance to physical chracteristics to make their prescriptions, single remedy often just a few doses. Then the next remedy, when the next lot of characteristics come up. I've never heard it termed the "Boger Boenninghausan" or "Hahnemannian" approach though.

Study of remedies by the "modern" thinkers should come only after that, as the interpretations many times are partial and do not cover the whole dimension of the remedy or presentation of the patients that can require that remedy. Rg. Every patient needing Sulphur will not appear like a "Ragged Philosopher".

As Opium stated, modern approaches of study and prescription add to the fun of the study of the Materia Medica, but need not be SOLELY relied on for prescription. This depends on the individual case.

doctorleela

[ 17. March 2003, 11:54: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

HAns,
I've seen various explanations on how to study the MAteria MEdica during our training.
BUT We were not told to study it using the BB repertory to map out the characteristic symptoms. This is an interesting way.
Does this then give CLinical importance to the MAteria MEdica Symptom, this method of Study?

Also I'm slightly blurred on why your way of prescription is termed HAhnemanian or Boeger Boenninghausan's method. IT is the method we're always taught to use in cases at the beginning. LAter when one has this ability to prescribe, then we also start looking at other "modern" ways of analysis and interpreting the patients history. At least that is the way I learnt it.
OF course in clinical practice one then just uses what comes most easily, and from experience.

Could you tell us what exactly is the Boeger Boenninghausan method? IS it the use of the BB Repertory?
I ask this becasue I went through some of the Boennighausan cases in some archives and I don't think I would have prescribed very differently in those cases.

doctorleela

[ 13. March 2003, 14:38: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hi,

If you have a copy of Materia Medica Pura have a look in Volume 1 (B.Jain edition) at the chapter called 'Preamble'. Hahnemann provides a couple of case examples to explain his method of prescribing.
Each and every symptom builds up a symptom-combination, a kind of grand characteristic, that is truly unique to one remedy. There is no guesswork. There is no piecemeal organization of symptoms. Each and every individual symptom is correlated to the proving symptoms referenced by numbers in the MMP. There is a differential done on each distinguishing symptom.

Boenninghausen was not satisfied with the Repertories of his day. The TPB was designed as an index for beginners to access the growing Materia Medica. Boenninghausen was able to see order where other people only saw a chaotic mass of unrelated symptoms. In many instances provings were fragmentary or incomplete. He formulated a way to generalize symptoms through analogy, breaking down characteristics and positioning them generally throughout the index, so that - this is the truly genius part - when recombining them, the potential was created to form many new characteristic combinations that are not necessarily in the provings, but can be clinically verified. In order to use Boenninghausen's method of repertorization you have to FIRST study the characteristic distinguishing symptoms so that you can recognize them in the patient and, just as importantly, know how to combine them in the rubrics of the TPB. It is not just a matter of flicking through pages of the TPB and wondering if this rubric suits...and hoping to fall into the right prescription. You would probably end up with Sulphur or a remedy that can't be correlated in any sufficient manner to any proving.

Boenninghausen's method requires exactness and precision. You have to be very precise about the symptom you hear and observe in the patient before applying it to the index. A case might come down to 3 or 4 general rubrics, and it-is-a-simple-matter then, of finding the correct remedy based on a grand characteristic combination. Any remaining symptoms in the case are prescribed for in the same fashion but also taking into account the remedy relationship of the previous medicine to the next. Boenninghausen charted these overlaps between remedy actions in the TPB Chapter VII, Relationship of Remedies, also known as Concordances (but with further additions) in the Boger-Boenninghausen Repertory.

Boenninghausen gives directions in the original foreward to the TPB on how to study the characteristics of remedies and relate them to the Therapeutic Pocketbook and the MMP. This foreword is reproduced in English in Dimitriadis' TBR.

One main difference I can see is that Hahnemann and Boenninghausen used symptom-combinations to build up characteristics that made them truly unique to a remedy. They did not reduce characteristics down to their lowest common denominator as an essence or a theme.

Chris

Hi Chis,

Thanks a lot!
Yes I knew about these 2 basic methods:
Hahnemann matched the symptoms completely with the proving symptom in the MAteria MEdica.
Boenninghausan's method consisted of a generalization of a peculiar (?) symptom to complete an incomplete symptom from the proving.

SO lets say the patient's symptoms are as below:

The baby's cough and runny nose have cleared up by Tuesday this week,
but at the same time he has developped loose stool and complains
occasionally of his stomach (or abdomen?)

The stool was loose on Tuesday, and he also had little pieces of this
loose stool going out with flatus, but not much of this. He lost
appetite, was quite pale and very sleepy. He did not have loose stool,
but continued to have occasional pains in the stomach on Wednesday and
Thursday, and this morning, quite early he had again diarrhoes, a
large amount of loose stool, smelling somewhat sour.

The appetite is decreased, but he drinks well, and the stool is loose
in the morning, at 5 a.m. and he complains more about the stomach in
the evening.

The tongue is not much different from usual, but the papillae look
more red and prominent than usually.
It seems it started when he got chilled at night on MOnday, when the
temperatures went suddenly down.
He is continually sleepy, but today's complexion is better than
yesterday's.
He did not have fever.
(frm one of our cases)

How will you go about analysing this?
doctorleela

[ 15. March 2003, 07:15: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

I would first want to know if any other remedy had been given previously that may have stopped up the runny nose. I think I would place the most weight on any modalities that I could find upon examination, like the Stool <5am + Stomach pain <evening. The concomitant <change of temperature is interesting. Sleepiness and loss of appetite might be considered if I thought they were out of proportion.

Is this a real life case of yours that you treated or a paper case you had to study?

I would give carbo veg OR am I not supposed to be guessing?

[ 15. March 2003, 08:24: Message edited by: carolorr ]

My guess is, you can guess all you like.

Carbo veg: worse change of weather
worse 5 am
worse evening
foul stool
escape stool from flatus

I only have kent and murphey. I looked only at the most heavily weighed remedies. Then I looked at carbo veg under causation and found worse from change of weather. Sulpher was big...also bryonia, and podo for just worse at 5am.

HI Chris,
Real live case, and prescrition made!
Just wanted to know what "HAhnemanian" Approach and "BB" approach would be in this case, that would be different to what we would do in analysis.

He had a fever with URTI 10 days back for which Sil 30 (singel dose) was given and he responded well. Only a bit of nasal discharge remained which was better as explained in the note above.
This week, the whole family (mother and sibling) had loose stools with fever as well, but he only had loose stools. (sorry editied this to make a correction in my last statement)

Thanks!

[ 19. March 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hi Carol, nice job. You are taking your studies seriously!

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com