Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

“ The high and only mission of the physician is to restore the sick to health to cure as it is termed”


The very first aphorism of Organon says it all. To achieve this, Hahnemann advised us to be skillful in three basic spheres -


# The knowledge of diseases.


# The knowledge of drugs.


# The knowledge of application of drug knowledge to disease knowledge.


If we give a bird's eye view towards Homoeopathy since it's beginning upto modern ages, we can see there are various types of prescriptions with different angles of thoughts to achieve the desired similimum. The most interesting fact is that almost all these types achieve successes and
that too through the hands of great stalwarts!


There are several methods to make a homoeopathic prescription. Some of them are –



  1. Totalistic

All the symptoms of the patient are taken into consideration. But greater stress is given upon the individualistic symptoms. The symptoms are
evaluated and arranged to get a portrait simulating Materia Medica. If matching occurs the very medicine is selected as similimum. Sometime, the physician has to take the help of repertory and calculate mathematically the most matching medicines and finally the similimum is confirmed by the study of Materia Medica.



  1. Particulars to Generals


This is the innovation of Boenninghausen. Here, all the particular symptoms are considered as general symptoms and they are to be arranged as a ‘Complete symptoms’ through the doctrine of analogy.




  1. Generals to particulars


After proper homoeopathic case taking the characteristic symptoms of the case are to be evaluated in the Kentian way, i.e.


– Mentals ;

- Physical generals ;

- Characteristic particulars ;

- Common symptoms.



  1. Miasmatic


Some authorities demand that in the background of every case there is some miasm, and so if anti miasmatic medicines are applied, they will be
cured.



  1. Constitutional


Here, the physician depends mainly upon the general make up of the patient along with his susceptibility, diathesis and temperament. Drs. Gravougl, Clarke, Burnett used this method often.



  1. Keynote


Here, the prescriber picks up one or few more striking, singular, uncommon, peculiar, characteristic symptoms and base their prescriptions upon them only. Drs. Lippe, Guernsey, Allen, Nash used to prescribe in this way.




  1. Organopathic


Here, the pathogenesity of the medicine on a particular part or organ of the body are considered to make the basis of prescription. Drs. Burnett, Hughes, O.Lesser, etc. used to prescribe in this way.




  1. Etiological


After a thorough case taking, the actual cause is searched for and the prescription is mainly based on those causative factors. Dr.Boger was a
pioneer in estabishing the causation as very important parameter.



  1. Seasonal


Different medicines become well indicated in the diseases appearing in different seasons.


Rainy season…………….Rhus Tox., Dulc., Nat.Sulph.

Winter…………………...Acon., Bryonia, Gels.

Summer………………….Ant.Crud., Glon., Nat.Mur.


These medicines do promptly act but especially if the case be an acute one.



  1. Chronological-Sequential


During drug proving the serial appearance of the symptoms in the provers are judged and in any case if such sequence be observed, the prescriptions by its similarity produce marvelous results.






  1. Tautopathic


A process of treatment with nosodes, not depending upon the symptoms but depending upon the material cause of the disease.




  1. Various other non-conventional   (non-recommendable) methods


a. Poly prescriptions

b. Mixtures

c. Group medicines

d. Specifics, Tonics, Injections, etc.





.........................................ARINDAM

Tags: prescription, similimum, types

Views: 412

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

there is a book written by Dr. K.N Mathur
called Principles of prescribing...


Dr. K. N. Mathur - Principles of Prescribing - Pages 671. B. Jain Publishers - Dr. Mathur, a veteran homeopath, was inspired to write as he found that the principles and experiences expounded by a large number of pioneers of Homoeopathy were lost in old Journals. He therefore collected all the Prescribing Principles (though varied) based on truth, illustrated through cases, which can be verified by other homeopaths. Contains cases from Hering, Kent, Dunham, Lippe, Nash, Boger, Stearns, Royal, Gutman, Carleton, Burnett, Clarke, Foubister, ect.
http://www.minimum.com/reviews/principles-prescribing.htm
Dear Nikhil,

Thanks for the information.
In this regard I request you to visit my blog post of 25 Mar, 2010 -

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profiles/blogs/cases-from-h...

Don't forget to put your valuable comments there.

Regards......................ARINDAM
Dear Sir,
Thanks for beautiful information.
What is your opinion regarding Mismatic Prescription?

Regards
Dr.Rajendra Dhamne
Yes, these different approaches to prescribe seem to work. They are like different paths to the summit. But, It opens up a critical debate. Are all paths equal? Or, some are more suited, safer and holistic in comparison to others? Why some are recommendable and others non-recommendable? And, are there some philosophical and practical guidelines to chose one from the other? Or, is it just fancy and whim to pick personal method? Or, is it just sheer chance that you happen to inherit one method and it keeps you engaged for life?
@Manoj
We could take as a principle a common saying " you get what you pay for "
By this I mean the greater the effort put in, the greater the result obtained.
Looking at it this way the various methodologies might be classified by the amount of time and effort required to master them.
Those which require a similar degree of effort and duration of study should be similar in their effectiveness. Of course this is just a broad idea but I believe it can be applied.

Of course some techniques, let us say the totalistic, include the keynote, etiological, organopathic and others depending on the pattern of the totality so we would have to say the totalistic requires more time and effort to study and apply and thus should yeild deeper results overall than any one method like keynote or etiological.

I ope to be able to respond to your Phos posting soon. So many different aspects and thus a much more comprehensive thought is needed to respond
Dear members,

Thanks for your comments.

All the above methods were practiced by our great masters with unquestionable success. The examples of these gems are scattered everywhere in our rich literatures. Therefore we can not tell this is good, that is bad.

To me, I think these are our weapons to carry with, and we have to pick the right weapon at right time when needed so.

I mean to say, there are variety of cases with different shades of colours with different types of manifestations of their symptoms. We have to cope up with all these presentations with different approaches accordingly.

But the question of recommendation of these approaches arise, when we deviate from the basic Homoeopathic rules laid down by our masters i.e. dose, repetition, potency,....similia, similibus, simplex.

That is to say, the success of each approach depends upon us only. We have to be skillful observers to understand, which part of the whole of the case is telling us basic story, whether it is causation, miasm, pathology or constitution.

But the question still persists- why, why & why so happens? How do these different paths lead to the ultimate goal, the similimum?

Is it because of openness or vast versatility of our Homoeopathy? Is there any unexplored areas of Homoeopathic therapeutics still unknown to us? Or something else?

Please, share your views. I believe we all care for HWC and " sharing is careing"

Regards..........................ARINDAM
Dear Dr Arindam.
Thank you for your interesting question.
In this world where we are so sure of our opinions and positions a little humility can go a long way.

There are certain carefully done and comprehensive studies which, while not exactly answering your question, deserve to be given serious consideration.

Maybe some will reject the comparison. For myself as one who has a greater interest in the pattern rather than in the small details within the pattern these studies are rather disquieting.
These studies concern the efficacy of psychotherapy.
I quote " Anyone who has ever peaked behind the surface of any sort of psychotherapy knows that practitioners have very strong views of how and why their practice works "
Professor Moerman proceeds to cite many studies which are too tedious for me to type up so I will just reference one section.

A massive comparison of 375 studies of different sorts of psychotherapy, using quite different ( and quite sophisticated ) statistical methods provided convincing evidence of the efficacy of psychotherapy. On the average the typical therapy client is better off than 75% of untreated individuals.

Yet despite volumes devoted to the theoretical differences among different schools of psychotherapy, the results of research demonstrate negligible differences in the effects produced by different therapy types.

I will happily provide the reference if anyone is interested.
Dear Jonathan,

Once I heard about a philosopy....

As because you are thinking something has to be there, that's why you are seeing it there.

As because my doctor is very well behaved, caring and listens to my complaints very carefully, very passionate & gentle to me, gives a lot of his valuable time to listen ( ACTUALLY THE DOCTOR IS A GREAT PSYCHOANALYST ), I believe, only he can give relief to my complaints of years standing.

And in most of the cases it happens so!!

Pretty strong philosophy indeed. To some extent a ...PSYCHOSOMATIC concept..

Did I get you, Jon?

.......................ARINDAM
@Arindam
Yes, it is something like this.
Except in addition to this we have to add another significant factor.
As I have pointed out on another thread there is good evidence to show that the belief of the doctor in their system ( allopathic, homeopathic, whatever ) has a major influence on the patients response to the therapy ( as in say analgesia during tooth extraction )

For these reasons I believe that the question of who has the best therapy or the right way or the best way is on the same level as whose religion will bring them to God or send others to hell

If this is so, then the best attitude we can assume is to find those whose methodology corresponds to ours and work with them to refine our knowledge of whatever methods we have chosen and leave others to do the same if they wish.
@Jonathan

You are saying..

If this is so, then the best attitude we can assume is to find those whose methodology corresponds to ours and work with them to refine our knowledge of whatever methods we have chosen and leave others to do the same if they wish.


I am wondering what other possibility could come up if this is not so!
@Manoj
Well then we will end up in either heaven or hell depending on who has the final truth and is most effective in meddling in other peoples business.
Absolutely fabulous work here. And, those who jump in on these discussions are all of a philosophical bent and seem to end up at the same point ~> Placebo discussion, patient/client relationship, you receive/become what you think and so forth. I enjoy sitting at the back of the classroom to listen in.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Debby Bruck.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...