Skip to main content

The Dangers of Homoeopathic prescribing

THE DANGERS OF HOMOEOPATHIC PRESCRIBING

The greatest danger of any homoeopathic physician is that he shall not be a true Hahnemannian homoeopath. Mongrelism defeats not only the doctor and the patient but the cause of homoeopathy. The specific pitfalls most frequently met are as follows: 

1. Homoeopathic philosophy:
The physician does not bear in mind his homoeopathic philosophy.

2. Improper Casetaking: 
He fails to take a complete enough case, from which to deduce the true remedy. He omits the mentals, the profoundly important generals, or fails to elicit the modalities of the particular symptoms. 

3. Lacks patience:
 Having given the remedy he forgets that he must WAIT and WATCH. He te peats the remedy, in unwise zeal, before the definite slump comes after the improvement which has followed his remedy. More of a good thing does not mean a better thing in homoeopathic prescribing.

4. Hearing's law:
He fails to look for the action of Hering's three Laws of Cure: That the remedy works from within outward, from above downward, and in the reverse order of the symptoms. (This never happens, except under the action of the curative homoeopathic remedy). 

5. Use Placebo:
He omits to make use of the "second-best remedy", i.e., Sac. lac. Thereby, be sometimes loses the patient's confidence, especially that of those who are accustomed to taking much medicine.

6. Make sure patient took medicine:
He fails to make sure that the patient has actually taken the remedy. (Wherever possible, always administer the dose yourself). Or, he fails to find out what other remedies the patient may be taking or what dietetic interferences there are. The physician must be cognizant of what substances interfere with the action of our different remedies, as coffee with Nux vom., or acids with Acon.

7. Counseling:
He does not search out the psychological and sociological deterrents to cure and teach the patient how to evade and overcome these. 

8. Recognise:
He sometimes does not recognize soon enough when the remedy is not working, and is then often too busy to revise the case, and try again to find the most similar remedy.

9. Give adjuvants: He permits himself to give minor remedies for trivial or temporary ailments incident to chronic treatment, when Sac. lac, or sensible adjuvants such as hydrotherapy would suffice.

10. Know the action of Remedy:
He changes remedy because of the out-cropping of other symptoms without discriminating between aggravation symptoms, symptoms due to idiosyncrasy, and symptoms returning under the chronic remedy (which the patient may never recall having had before and actual new symptoms which occur because the remedy was only partially similar, and, finally, symptoms of some discharge-such as coryza, leucorrhoea or perspiration-which represent a curative vent and are due to the action of the remedy.

11. Knowledge of Posology:
He gives the wrong potency of the right remedy. (If sure of the remedy, it is well to try another potency, or, first, three doses of the original potency at two or four hour intervals. NB-Always instruct patients to stop taking the remedy as soon as appreciable amelioration sets in, and to switch to the "second" remedy, i.e. Sac. lac.)

12. Too high potency in incurable cases produce agg:
He gives too high a potency in an incurable case, or one with marked pathological changes, and so induces an aggravation with which the vital force can- not cope. (If he has done this and the patient is going down-hill, he must antidote).

13. Palliative remedy:
He gives a profound constitutional remedy to a case which is too sick to stand it and should have merely a related palliative remedy. For instance, in incipient tuberculosis it is dangerous to give Sulph., Sil. or Phos. at least in high potency. A single dose of the thirtieth (30th) is as high as he should venture. If the case is far gone in tuberculosis, these remedies must not be given, but rather a palliative for the most distressing symptoms, such as Rumex, Sang, Puls, or Seneg

14. Certain remedies are dangerous to mishandle:
He must remember that certain remedies are dangerous to mishandle. For instance, Kali carb, especially in cases of advanced arthritis; or Sil, where an abscess, if suppuration were brought on, would break in a dangerous location, as in the lungs; or some of the nosodes, like Psor. which, in deeply psoric cases say of asthma, may induce terrific aggravation; or Lachesis, whose improper repetition may engraft a permanent unfavourable mental state on the patient. Arsenicum is another dangerous remedy. When appa- rently indicated in the last stages of an acute disease, say pneumonia, it may hasten demise although it will make the death tranquil, but it will not rally the patient as one might expect. In the terminal stages of chronic disease, where cure is impossible, it will sometimes bring the patient back long enough to sign a will or see the family, and will ultimately induce euthanasia.

15. Don't produce Suppression:
He will often be surprised to find that certain symptoms or groups of symptoms are relieved by his re- medy and yet the patient feels worse or develops more deep-seated trouble. In this case, the prescribing has been superficial and suppressive. Suppression is perhaps the greatest danger of ordinary medicine from the point of view of homoeopathic philosophy, and the deep homoeopath must be constantly on his guard not to pro- duce suppression with his remedies. If he has given an acute remedy for an apparently superficial trouble which is relieved but the patient feels badly, he should do the chronic case at once, and the deep acting remedy will right matters.

16. Wrong  order of remedies:
He may give remedies in the wrong order or inimical remedies in succession, thereby aggravating the patient and mixing up the case. Throughout his practice the physician must sell the idea of homoeopathy with brief but helpful explanations to the patients in order to insure their cooperation. He must himself have the character to sit tight when he knows what he is doing and not spoil his cases by un necessary and harmful prescribing. Above all, he must consider each patient as an opportunity for service not only to the individual and the community but to homoeopathy and to the race.

Source book: A Brief Study Course in Homoeopathy by Dr. Elizabeth Wright 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Life history and contributions Carol Von Boenninghausen

Life history and contributions Carol Von Boenninghausen Baron Clemens Maria Franz Carol Von Boenninghausen was one of the noteworthy persons in the history of homeopathy. His contribution has enriched the profession of homeopathy to a large extent. Birth:- He was born in Netherlands on March 12 of 1785. He belonged to a royal family that had a great respect and honor in the society.  Education and later life:- He received his degree of Juris on 30th of August 1806 and was appointed as the lawyer at the supreme court of Deurentes. Being a versatile genius, he soon became the chief auditor in the court of Louis Napoleon. Later he was appointed as the royal librarian and chief of the topographical bureau from where he resigned in the year 1810. In the year 1812, he married and went to stay at a family estate at Western Prussia. Here, he engaged himself in the study of architecture and botany. He was the president of the provincial court (1816) of land registration which m...

Life history and contributions of M. L. Sarkar

Life history and Contributions of M. L. Sarkar Birth:- Mahendra Lal Sarkar was born on the 2nd November, 1833. He was born in "Paikpara", a village 18 miles away from the Howrah city of west Bengal. Early life and Education:- At the tender age of 5 years Mahendra Lal Sarkar lost his father Tarakanath sarkar. He had his elementary education in a near by village school under the guidance of late babu Thakur Das Dey. Later on, till 1849 he studied in a free school by name David hare's school. This young man managed to get a junior scholarship and admission into Hindu college. where he studied up to 1854. After completion of his primary education, he was admitted in to the medical college. And in the next year he got married. After 6 years of medical study from 1854-1860, he got his L.M.S. degree. With the encouragement of Dr.Fayrerin the year 1863 he appeared to M.D. examinations and stood first. He was the second M.D from the Calcutta University. In his initi...

Aphorism 89

Explained of Aphorism 89 Need of asking special questions.  When the patient has finished on his own accord his story of suffering and has answered to the questions of physician, but physician thinks that he had not made complete picture of disease then he is at liberty to ask some special questions.  Physician has to rely on patient for description of his sensation of suffering unless it is a case of malingering. Even feigned diseases can be diagnosed by close observation.  In footnote Dr. Hahnemann gives example of special questions, avoiding its frame to be suggestive in itself, like -  •How often are his bowels moved? What is the exact character of the stool? Did the whitish evacuation consist of mucus or faeces? Had he or had he not pains during the evacuation? What was their exact character, and where were they seated?  •What did the patient vomit? Is the bad taste in the mouth putrid, or bitter, or sour, or what? Before or after eating, or dur...