Would appreciate comments about the following:

1. I keep hearing about constitutional prescribing, I thought there was only one type of prescribing in homeopathy and that was based on the totality of the symptoms. So are these two the same. How many types of prescribing are there in homeopathy.

2. During provings, a remedy doesn't produce all of its symptoms in all the provers, so would it be fair to assume that the CHARACTERISTIC symptom (which is UNUSUAL, PECULIAR not something general e.g. restlessness or lack of sleep)is the one which is shown in ALL of the provers. The reason for this logic is that, since during proving, the remedy didn't show all its symptoms in one prover, so there is every bit a chance that the patient in question and the prover (who didn't show, say, one particular symptom of the remedy) are alike and hence the patient in question won't benefit from that remedy. Whereas if a particular symptom of the remedy is shown in all the provers, then its the CHARACTERISTIC symptom and if its present as the chief complaint of a patient, its guaranteed that he will be cured. (I am forgetting the aphorism # which deals with this as it says that it doesn't matter if a particular symptom was shown in lesser number of provers, it still will work on the patient in question based on the totality.)

[ 11. August 2003, 06:30: Message edited by: fitness first ]

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

Dear Fitness

Reg.: 1]
There is no such thing as constitutional prescribing in homeopathy as ‘’CONSTITUTION’’ is not disease, but homeopathic remedies are prescribed on disease-symptoms ONLY.

Reg.: 2]
Note, that in par.: 153, the term characteristic is set in brackets. The reason for that is, that characteristic does not mean: striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar symptoms of the remedy, but to find a remedy who’s CHARACTERISTICS match the striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar symptoms of the disease.

To get a good grip on this very important term you should read par.: 258, 164, 165, 178, 198, 209, 67 footnote, 153, 154, 133, 130, 102, 101, 95, 104 in the Organon.
I published an article relating to this term on my website: www.boger-boenninghausen.com

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

Fittness questions are always touchee. I think he wants to learn homeopathy in his own way. Which is the best method. He thinks about every point. If we could answer him like that "We don't know the real logic behind this observation but the things are happening like that". This is far most better instead of presenting un-scientific and illogical replies.

Not Agreed with point number 1 mentioned by Respected Hans but some how agreed with point number 2....

In homeopathy, there is no rule. Every homeopath has its own understanding and experience. Each one has its own observation.

If homeopathy is not acceptable at official level in so called advance countries like USA, England, France, German, Japan, China and Russia etc then there are strong reasons... The people are living in these countries are not mental or fooooool. why they are not accepting this system. We should seriously think about that. Few organizations are registering homeopaths at their own risk with collaboration with health representatives. But this does not mean that the system has been recognized at official level. There are some requirements to prove this system at official level.

See in response to your first question every homeopath has its own view. Request them to put their views .

They will definitely differ with one another and try to present different examples in support of their replies. In such cases, no will body will accept homeopathy.


Actually the point is when homeopath presents funny philosophical thoughts these people (rep of WHO) become struck. We (alternative therapist) bring them at a point where they become confuse.

Homeopathy has many ways of reaching the similimum. Each one of us has our own experience to tackle the patients problem. Many ways means, many approaches and many approaches means many similimums. Totality is only one way to reach at suitable remedy whether similimum or near to similimum. Each remedy will work if the remedy is covering most the symptoms of the patient.

Hans is that Rational Practitioner who was not homeopath when he started discussion in this forum (not claimed). After few months he claimed he is a homeopath (written in his signature) and now a days he is rational practitioner... Why?

The answer is very simple,,, when he cant find answers of so many uneven observations during his practice he decided to declare himself a Rational Practitioner ( he who uses many methods including homeopathy in treating the patient) Because he knows that homeopathy is not only one method among so many other alternative methods for treating the patient. He is utilizing those methods in his practice so he decided he should declare that he is rational practitioner and not classical homeopath.

[ 11. August 2003, 12:29: Message edited by: Khokhar ]

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

Yes constitution prescribing is a very famous way of prescribing in homeopathy. This has been discussed earlier in a thread. I should find that thread.

Hans: True, constitution is not a disease, but in homeopathy you do not treat the disease but the patient, who has his/her personality, constitution. While prescribing according to symptoms takes precedent you have the pre-disease state in which symptoms haven't appeared yet but the patient feels that "something is wrong". Wouldn't "constitutional prescribing" be better than waiting for symptoms to develop?

__________________
Astra<br /><br />"Difficult cases take some time to be cured,<br />impossible - a little longer."

Astra,

Could you please explain what constitutional prescribing is and give an example also.

Secondly, if you can, please provide the references too.

The reading that I have done so far, I have yet to see this "constitutional" prescribing in any of the old masters work, this seems to be a contemporary term only.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

K.N Mathur has addressed this issue in his book "principle of prescribing"...

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Mathur. What's his pedigree, is he an authority on homeopathy or just someone adding confusion to the already confused world

Secondly, what does he say in his book, please mention it summarily if you can.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

what do you mean by authority to whom you will accept an authority... what is the criteria

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

Simple question, simple answer

Authority: An expert whose views are taken as definitive, someone who has displayed successful prescribing equivalent to the old masters.

Criteria of measurement: Old masters e.g. Hahnemann, Boenn, Lippe, Herring. (Somehow the other, I am not impressed with what I have read so far of Kent and have deliberately not included him in the list of masters.)

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.