The ABC Homeopathy Forum
queries on constitutional remedy - homeopaths pls reply
I have some queries on selection, use and effectiveness of constitutional remedies.pls answer the queries in full details.
1. Does every person has one and only one constitutional remedy? If no, then how many are possible?
2. What is the basis of selection of constitutional remedy - mental & physical symptoms both or only mental symptoms + general behaviour? What if mental symptoms match but physical ailments do not, is it still a constitutional remedy?
3. If equally different mental and/or physical symptoms match with 2-3 different remedies then how to determine constitutional remedy?
4. What dose and potency of a constitutional remedy is required for chronic diseases?
5. What would you see in a person to prescribe him antimony crudum
pulsatilla/phosphorus/lycopodium as his constitutional remedy?
thinc on 2010-11-09
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
These aren't exactly simple questions :)
Something it is important to understand is that 'constitutional' prescribing is a technique, and like any technique it is most effective in the hands of someone who has skill and experience using it. There are a number of styles of prescribing, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Each may also be more or less appropriate to any particular patient at a specific time. A good homoeopath should be flexible enough to use whichever style suits the patient, not just whichever one suits them personally.
Having said all that, these are my answers :)
1. When using constitutional case-taking/prescribing, you are looking for one remedy that covers most of the symptoms and history of the patient. There will only be one of these at any one time. However, there is no guarantee that this is the only remedy they will ever need. During constitutional case-taking the current state may be cured, but uncover or bring back an older state, that requires a different remedy. This older state is usually completely different to the first one - not simply one part of the case becoming quiet and another part becoming active. The person changes on all levels and no longer fits into the original prescription.
In my experience, I typically only see 2 of these kinds of states in patients. On rare occasions I have seen 3. Quite often I see one main remedy do most of the work, with need for intercurrent remedies (acute prescriptions mostly, but sometimes nosodes or isopathic remedies).
Usually this change of state occurred in the past in response to some traumatic event. This is a very good sign when you return the patient to this point.
2. The rules for homoeopathic prescription shouldn't change just because you are looking for a 'constitutional'. The totality of the patient must be matched to the totality of the remedy, with emphasis on peculiars, miasm, generals (which includes mentals). The patient leads you with their symptoms, nothing should be ignored.
The only thing that matters when choosing a symptom for use, is whether it is peculiar. The fact that it is mental or physical is irrelevent. A common mental symptom like Anger is useless to us, just as a common physical symptom like Headache is. Constitutional prescribing is not mental prescribing. Hahnemann did say that the mood (or mind) of the patient was the most peculiar part of any person, and least able to be hidden from us, but the search for the rare and strange should never be restricted to the mental sphere.
When you just prescribe for one level of the person like the mental, what you may find is the person improves on that level but not on the others. This means that the disease is still running, and does not help the patient in the long run.
3. This isn't an easy question to answer. This is what homoeopaths are trained to do, what we spend our time learning to do in clinic, why we attend courses and seminars. It depends on the patient, how they are presenting. From the constitutional perspective there is only one remedy at one time, so if you must determine which remedy matches the totality best. First and foremost you are looking for those things that are rare, strange, peculiar, individual. Then you will examine the hierarchy of the body (general-mental-emotional-physical-local-pathological) to place those symptoms in an order of importance. This can actually be quite complex and it is where most students and lay homoeopaths have the most trouble.
In my experience, each medicine has its own unique signature. This may be seen in the single symptoms (in the repertory they are the only remedy known to produce that symptom)for that remedy, as well as the unique combination of other symptoms that have been recorded for it. If you can understand what is unique in the patient, matching that to what is unique in the remedy is less problematic. It helps me personally to focus on the problem of the patient to understand what needs to be cured, and then to understand what each remedy is useful for curing (match the problem of the patient to the problem of the remedy).
Some homoeopaths use 'constitutional' to describe (or justify) allopathic prescribing. They make assumptions about the reason the patient is sick, and attempt to prescribe on that (eg. this person was abused as a child so they must have Staph, or this person didn't have a mother so they need Nat-mur and so on). This ignores the expression of the problem the patient gives, and instead uses the ideas or theories the homoeopath has. This rarely works and gives the prescribing style a bad reputation.
4. Dose and potency is completely individual. There is no rule for chronic disease.
5. Do you want to know the difference between those 4 (very different) remedies?
Something it is important to understand is that 'constitutional' prescribing is a technique, and like any technique it is most effective in the hands of someone who has skill and experience using it. There are a number of styles of prescribing, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Each may also be more or less appropriate to any particular patient at a specific time. A good homoeopath should be flexible enough to use whichever style suits the patient, not just whichever one suits them personally.
Having said all that, these are my answers :)
1. When using constitutional case-taking/prescribing, you are looking for one remedy that covers most of the symptoms and history of the patient. There will only be one of these at any one time. However, there is no guarantee that this is the only remedy they will ever need. During constitutional case-taking the current state may be cured, but uncover or bring back an older state, that requires a different remedy. This older state is usually completely different to the first one - not simply one part of the case becoming quiet and another part becoming active. The person changes on all levels and no longer fits into the original prescription.
In my experience, I typically only see 2 of these kinds of states in patients. On rare occasions I have seen 3. Quite often I see one main remedy do most of the work, with need for intercurrent remedies (acute prescriptions mostly, but sometimes nosodes or isopathic remedies).
Usually this change of state occurred in the past in response to some traumatic event. This is a very good sign when you return the patient to this point.
2. The rules for homoeopathic prescription shouldn't change just because you are looking for a 'constitutional'. The totality of the patient must be matched to the totality of the remedy, with emphasis on peculiars, miasm, generals (which includes mentals). The patient leads you with their symptoms, nothing should be ignored.
The only thing that matters when choosing a symptom for use, is whether it is peculiar. The fact that it is mental or physical is irrelevent. A common mental symptom like Anger is useless to us, just as a common physical symptom like Headache is. Constitutional prescribing is not mental prescribing. Hahnemann did say that the mood (or mind) of the patient was the most peculiar part of any person, and least able to be hidden from us, but the search for the rare and strange should never be restricted to the mental sphere.
When you just prescribe for one level of the person like the mental, what you may find is the person improves on that level but not on the others. This means that the disease is still running, and does not help the patient in the long run.
3. This isn't an easy question to answer. This is what homoeopaths are trained to do, what we spend our time learning to do in clinic, why we attend courses and seminars. It depends on the patient, how they are presenting. From the constitutional perspective there is only one remedy at one time, so if you must determine which remedy matches the totality best. First and foremost you are looking for those things that are rare, strange, peculiar, individual. Then you will examine the hierarchy of the body (general-mental-emotional-physical-local-pathological) to place those symptoms in an order of importance. This can actually be quite complex and it is where most students and lay homoeopaths have the most trouble.
In my experience, each medicine has its own unique signature. This may be seen in the single symptoms (in the repertory they are the only remedy known to produce that symptom)for that remedy, as well as the unique combination of other symptoms that have been recorded for it. If you can understand what is unique in the patient, matching that to what is unique in the remedy is less problematic. It helps me personally to focus on the problem of the patient to understand what needs to be cured, and then to understand what each remedy is useful for curing (match the problem of the patient to the problem of the remedy).
Some homoeopaths use 'constitutional' to describe (or justify) allopathic prescribing. They make assumptions about the reason the patient is sick, and attempt to prescribe on that (eg. this person was abused as a child so they must have Staph, or this person didn't have a mother so they need Nat-mur and so on). This ignores the expression of the problem the patient gives, and instead uses the ideas or theories the homoeopath has. This rarely works and gives the prescribing style a bad reputation.
4. Dose and potency is completely individual. There is no rule for chronic disease.
5. Do you want to know the difference between those 4 (very different) remedies?
♡ brisbanehomoeopath last decade
Thanks Dr david for replying.
I understood your points well and got to know how much complex the selection of constitutional remedy is.
About the last point I want to know the difference or more precisely selection criteria among those four remedies(from constitutional point of view) just like you used an example in your 3rd point - 'eg. this person was abused as a child so they must have Staph, or this person didn't have a mother so they need Nat-mur and so on'
I understood your points well and got to know how much complex the selection of constitutional remedy is.
About the last point I want to know the difference or more precisely selection criteria among those four remedies(from constitutional point of view) just like you used an example in your 3rd point - 'eg. this person was abused as a child so they must have Staph, or this person didn't have a mother so they need Nat-mur and so on'
thinc last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.