What is happening when you give a remedy, it holds for a short time only and the symptoms return? What questions will you ask yourself as you decide what to do? The objective of this article is to open up a more precise form of discussion of remedy outcomes and case management. The suggestions I’ve made below based on Hahnemann’s discussion of similar and dissimilar disease actions in nature are just that – suggestions. Continue reading
Category Archives: Case-taking
This article was prompted by a discussion with a colleague regarding an old post of mine, entitled “What We Know and What We don’t Know”. Our discussion took us into the subject covered by Dr. Gary Weaver’s original post, on “The Realities of Practice”. In his article, amongst other things Gary set out a prescribing process for a busy clinic where 40-100 patients may be seen a day by splitting up case-taking between one prescriber and two or three nurses or advanced students. The main symptoms of the case are elicited by the prescriber’s assistants. The patient is then brought to the prescriber for further questioning, analysis and prescription. This kind of clinic is more common in India, and much less common elsewhere. Many, if not most of us work privately with patients, and I don’t know if any such volume clinics exist in the West.
The point, however, is that clear symptoms may be taken by the assistants within 20 minutes, and that deeper investigation and analysis should not take the prescriber longer than a further half an hour, often much less. Continue reading
The Kentian Call of the Constitutional Remedy
A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. (Steven Weinberg. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.) (thank you, Wikipedia…)
As homoeopaths we must be aware of perhaps the no. 1 pitfall in analyzing a case. And once you notice it – it cannot remain un-noticed.
Homoeopathy is not a therapy based on hunches or intuitions. It is a therapy based on observation of fact, and knowledge. Just go back to the Organon aphorism 3 – or simply consider the obvious. The homoeopath’s job is to observe and elicit the information about the disease (case-taking), to know what is curative in remedies (knowledge of provings, poisonings and clinical experience), and to find the appropriate remedy, administering it with appropriate potency and dosing. Continue reading
Recently my colleague Gary Weaver posted an article by Carol Dunham on case-taking. The article was wise, learned, extensive and – let’s face it – somewhat wordy. Extremely wordy. So on an initial reading, the brilliance of the actual comments regarding case-taking becomes dulled, presented within an analytical and theoretical context which is either familiar from the Organon, or Dunham’s own form of analysis which is not a matter of consensual self-evident fact. Continue reading