Relative issues in Homoeopathy – points to ponder
Dr Niloy Adhikary
There are many variations in practice of homoeopathic medicines. Some are the strict follower of the organon of medicine, some partly follow the organon, some fail to follow many thing because they fail to comprehend the teachings of organon, some interpret languages according to their capacity– some just use the homoeopathic medicine and apply to the patient according to their choice, some use specifics according to the name of the disease, some trying to branding their practice, some use the term ‘advanced’ before their homoeopathy practice, some prefer to use the term ‘modern ‘for their technique of practice homoeopathy, there are many methods like classical method, Kolkata method(some call such) , Mumbai method, compilation method, patent method, potency mother tincture method, potency biochemic, mother method etc.
We can consider all these under two divisions – one group has their own formulas or approach of collecting symptoms to reach qualitative totality to reach remedy and practice according to the teachings of Organon .
Another group just matching remedy with the symptoms of materia medica and the patient if they think this matching is not sufficient with one remedy, they select another remedy and gives both and repeat according to their ideology of practice and demands it is scientific.
Here question arises when single medicine cures or keeps patient better why we think for combination. Shall we ignore the basic principles of homoeopathy?
It is a matter to understand if we demand we are doing homoeopathy we must follow the basics of homoeopathy what organon advocated us. It is also a matter of concern there may be some terminology /ideas which may not be acceptable to all of us at present days (There is no problem if we want to explain some areas of organon with the advanced knowledge of present days for better understanding during discussion or conceptualize it with the present terminology/ideas without altering the basic theme) and there may remain little mistake or old conceptions but the basics of homoeopathy is infallible, what time says us. Most of the homoeopaths do not bother with these little errors nor so confuse with these which seem to be erroneous at present days.
But if we try to change the basic theme of homoeopathy in the name of modernization I think there is further chance to lose its glory, what we have seen in the past in America and England. It is also a matter to note integration with other pathy sometimes helps the patient but in most cases if we integrate it with other medicinal system by the name of holistic health, there is also chance of losing its brightness and sometimes it may not be beneficial to the patient, its effect may be hampered. Again there may be possibility of developing it as complimentary alternative medicine or homoeopathy may be hidden under the name of ‘integrated medicine’ in future what we do not want in our country.
I think combination of science, art and philosophy makes a system perfect. What we see in Homoeopathy.
We become happy when anybody tries to explain homoeopathy in the present scientific paradigm side by side we become unhappy when anybody criticize Hahnemann’s principles of practice of homoeopathy to uphold one’s own view.
It is painful, sometime confuses the profession when they try to establish scientificity of homoeopathy according to their view & they call to discard stickiness to single medicine, minimum dose, some time advocate lifelong medicine (like allopathy), no need of high potency, one potency is sufficient for all diseases, below 12 C is not homoeopathy, it does not matter one drop or 1o drops or one globule or 8/10 globules or like that, no question of homoeopathic aggravation or medicinal aggravation, 50 millesimal potency is bogus, no question of suppression or palliation etc.etc.
Like cures like is the eternal law of nature–, what Dr. Hahnemann established and framed it as Homoeopathy. If anybody or any group calls to change all principles of homoeopathy and accepting only just one among the cardinal principles is not the total homoeopathy, because homoeopathy should be practiced on basis of the guide line of organon for the betterment of patient. We can say the term “homoeopathy” and the ideas relating to preparing (method of reducing the quantity of original drug substance and increase the quality by serial dilution or potentisation) medicine or practice is unwritten patented by the Dr. Hahnemann and the legal bodies of the homoeopathy across the world till date. All similar know ledges are the property of Dr. Hahnemann and Homoeopathy.
But, high jacking the knowledge of homeopathy (even partly) or materia medica and preparing the medicine or giving medicine by modifying some areas to establish own brand named therapy or preparing by the allopathic pharmaceutical company following the homoeopathic rules of dilution without giving credit to homoeopathy is one kind of offence according to my opinion. Though In this case I think a law year’s opinion is more important than my opinion.
Little beat of similarity with homoeopathic principal many times give result. It is also the credit of homoeopathy but homoeopathy demands perfection.
Different opinions of practice homoeopathy demanding there protocol is more scientific, some are demanding there protocol‘s are superior. Some are criticizing as Organon is old age book, so it essential to rewrite it.
Some saying, to satisfy the scientific community homoeopathy should be practice this & this way.
I don’t know which protocol is superior but those getting satisfactory result following the both 5th & 6th edition of organon. Are we doing wrong? Another question coming to my mind, what should be the main aim of practice of homoeopathy- satisfy the scientific community (? so called) or skeptics (I think it is impossible to stop skepticism because if we satisfy one issue they will raise another issue due to their character )or satisfy the patient or cure or relief a case?
Now a day’s person has to take lifelong medicine & most of the doctors are in favor of such protocol.
But, the Homoeopathy is the fruit of lifelong perseverance of Dr. Hahnemann and the aim of this treating system is ultimately freedom from medication at one time.
Most say there is no harm in homoeopathy even in indiscriminate use. Here my opinion is there is possibility of harm by indiscriminate use of homoeopathic medicine what many of us observed in our practice life but if it is used following the basics of organon it is 100% safe.
Some are demanding it is essential to rewrite the organon , here the questions comes, is anybody entitled to do so? I don’t know. But if improved therapeutic knowledge comes with advantages in a view to keep healthier, safer, easier, more beneficial for the patient considering both short term and long term effect and fits with the basics of homoeopathy that may be accepted and may be included in the Syllabus of BHMS, and that knowledge also may be feed to every registered homoeopathic medical practitioner. Before including that we have to judge it from every corner following trial and error method in the research centre permitted by the Government. If someone or some organization shows interest or wish to support in new research work under approved research centers, I think there should be provision of incorporation under special criteria following the Govt. rule. ( I don’t know is there any such special provision or not under act), I think it is also to be judged – who, which group, his dedication, past history, motive, his business, honesty, experience, qualification, experiment details, politically biased or not etc everything.
Because Dr. Samuel Hahnemann has no intention to make business or financial benefit or any gain by establishing homoeopathy or writing organon except the welfare of mankind , he became pained from the then prevailing method of treatment and he tested his invention with many patients and corrected his knowledge by seeing the nature, because nature tells us the truth. He had only intention to cure sick, keep man healthy physically, mentally &socially. Not to impose extra financial burden for keeping man healthy.
Everybody should keep it in mind that homoeopathy has one& only inventor unlike other pathy i.e. Dr. Christian Fredric Samuel Hahnemann.
Another matter , now a days in many chronic cases peoples are coming after allopathic or Ayurvedic etc treatment, some are agreed to taper off allopathy or Ayurveda after starting homoeopathic treatment according to doctors advice but some wish to continue both pathy though the ideology of different systems are different. Hence the medico legal issue may come in both instances if patient die. Because I think many medicines have some short term or immediate action/effect and also long term or late action/ effect.
These type medico legal issues may also come even following the most propaganda some advance/dialectic/Banerjee method/Saha method/Ram’s method/Sham’s methods etc. etc. If any harm occurs following these methods or during treatment and the circumstance proves it is due to application of homoeopathic medicine following those methods. In the court of law the expert homoeopathic physician or homoeopathic medical board/council under the Govt. supervision will support these methods or not? I am just putting the questions here. These questions arising as there are different ways to learn at the present era.
Every qualified rightly thinking homoeopathic doctor knows what to accept & what to discard.
In spite of that I think beginner homoeo doctors may confuse with different methods.
I think these questions should be shorted out. In our country the highest authority in homoeopathy is Central council of Homoeopathy, I think they can resolve all this issues if they want to take initiative. International community of homoeopathy should also concern all about these.
Be the first to comment