Often I read: ‘this remedy is good for infertility, autism, ADHD, Alzheimer, Lyme’s disease, etc.’ and then I ask myself: are we not to prescribe for the person rather then for the disease? Or, rephrasing: isn’t the first question we should ask ourselves: is this a remedy for the person or for the disease?
One could argue that the state of the person IS the disease and that would hold true for a similimum prescription, which I understand to be the essential underlying state, in other words ‘the way he is’.
But then: don’t we have many states throughout our lives? We are clearly not always in the same state every day. Our understanding depends on the definition of the word ‘state’. If it is the overal feeling one gets as a reaction to circumstances , than ‘state’ is a fluctuating set of emotions, that can change from day to day, from week to week or longer periods in our live. Adverse circumstances will make us sad, depressed, disappointed, exhausted and the like, while good circumstances will make us cheerful and enthused. Some circumstances produce predictable states: big losses will cause deep grief, major misfortune will fill us with worry, great luck or achievements will make us happy.
As long as the reactions are in proportion to the happenings, they are normal, common and healthy and hence no basis for prescription.
However, the reaction to circumstances depends partly on the prevailing state of the patient; it will determine how and when he will be disturbed by certain events, according to his sensitivities.
A person whose ‘condition-to-be-OK’ depends on security will be more affected by a loss of a job than a person more sensitive to pain or hurt or a disturbance of the family harmony. One whose ‘conditon-to-be-OK’ depends on his role and status in society will suffer more from lack of recognition than one who is dependent on close ones for survival.
All breakups will cause suffering but not all suffering will be the same. As a matter of fact, they will all activate the sensitive spot in a particular way.
Therefor it is hard to prescribe for the breakup, assuming that we even have remedies for ‘breakups’. (or for that matter: for grief, reprimands, indignation, guilt, financial loss, etc). They are mainly the triggers for the underlying state, we are trying to address. And as such: they give indirectly useful information.
Another set of ‘circumstances’ are environmental and impossible to escape. Toxins poison everybody, in the same way deficiencies affect everybody. Though the one is more resistant and can handle the never ending assualt on our system better than the other; but are we supposed to treat the effects thereof at all? Or are they to be considered ‘obstacles to cure?’ Is autism a result of circumstances or is it a ‘state’? Or both? What about CFS? Fybromyalgia? Burnout? Food intolerances? and the list goes on and on. When a person is poisoned, do we treat the poison or the person?
(Hahnemann was clear on that topic!)
The question is then: can we do this with homeopathy (alone)? Nandita Shah, a former and brilliant homeopath puts patients on a vegan diet and life style adjustments and claims she hardly ever need homeopathic remedies as the symptoms all disappear.
Is it then logical to let patients continue their life style, diets and medication and try to ‘restore them to health’, as Hahnemann stated, with a pill? How often has this proven to be succesful?
No wonder many homeopaths specialize in detoxification, with good results. And more and more homeopaths realize there is more needed or different modalities needed, besides the similimum.
Many homeopaths treat cicumstances and their emotional effects too, you might say. Many treat conditions like: unhappy relationships, learning difficulties, behavior problems, trauma and so an and all have results.
As we wrote before: homeopathy can be precribed on every level and the above mentioned are level two, three and four prescriptions and all have their place. But they treat the symptoms not the person, not making use of the full potential of homeopathy
