Dr Archit K. Mehta
INTRODUCTION:
The beauty of homoeopathy lies in the art of case-taking. With the advancement of homoeopathy with time, the art of case-taking has also evolved. Case taking part in homoeopathy has always been artistic since the beginning. Every stalwart has his/ her personal touch on the subject of case taking in following the guidelines of Master Hahnemann. With the evaluation of science, this art has also evolved. Today we have so many ways of prescribing in the field of homoeopathy, and every one of them differs at some point in part of case taking also. Nowadays it has become a fashioned discussion among young homoeopaths also, that some are underappreciating it by not taking the proper details and some are exaggerating the idea of case-taking by mentioning unnecessary details case. We will discuss some important parts of case taking that are of utmost importance and every stalwart was talking about.
When we talk about homoeopathic cases many beginner homoeopaths think that it is a lengthy job, but in a clinical reality, it is not so. If you follow the cases of stalwarts like Clarke, Kent, Nash, Murphy, and Farrington we will find caselates of 5 6 lines only. Dr. J. H. Clarke & E. B. Nash used to prescribe on details available in letters from their fellow physicians. This indicates that long pages of case takings are not always required for proper prescription.
WHY DO WE TAKE CASE?
The sole purpose of case-taking is to individualize the person and to find best best-suited homoeopathic medicine for that person. The meaning of the term Homoeopathic is MEDICINE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ARTIFICIAL DISEASE WHICH IS SIMILAR TO NATURAL DISEASE. And that is the foundational principle and therapeutic law of homoeopathy. Actions of drug substances on healthy human beings are noted in the forms of signs and symptoms in our materia medica, which are collected via drug proving. When the sick person is sitting in front of us, we are trying to elicit symptoms of that sickness via the process of case taking and trying to match that symptom in our materia medica, and the drug which is capable of producing those signs and symptoms is known as Homoeopathic remedy for that individual sick. Master Hahnemann was not strict in the organisation when it came to the art of case-taking. He has provided guidelines for case-taking, but those are not strict rules. In Dr Kent’s words, “It is necessary to have individualizing characteristics to enable you to classify that which you have, to perceive the value of symptoms, and, if you must settle down to a few remedies, to ascertain which of these is more important than another, or most important of all.” So the aim in case taking should be to individualize the person and to do that some cases require more effort and other requires less effort.
DR. J. T. KENT ON CASE TAKING AND PRESCRIBING:
In Lecture no. 32 of LECTURES OF HOMOEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY, Dr. J. T. Kent writs “The homoeopathic physician may think he has his case written out very well, but he does
not know whether he has or not until he has mastered the idea of this paragraph (aphorism. 153). He may have page after page of symptoms, and not know what the remedy is, and if he takes the record to a master the master will say:
“You have no case!”
“Why, I have plenty of symptoms. ”
“But you have no case. You have left your case out; you have left the image of the sickness out, because you have fated to get anything that characterizes it. You have plenty of symptoms, but have not anything characteristic. You have not taken your case properly.”
Again, in LECTURES OF HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA: Dr. Kent gave indications that one STRONG GENERAL SYMPTOM, RULE OUT PERTICULAR NO MATTER HOW CHARACTERSTIC IT IS.” A medicine which is being prescribed, must covers the generals of patient. If the generals of patient are not there in prescribed medicine, chances of failure increase.
LENGTHY OR SHORT CASE:
From the above discussion, it is now clear that the length of a case has nothing to do with the length and pages of case records. To prescribe homoeopathic medicine, the whole point lies in individualising of patient. Individualization of the patient can come from any part of the patient, varying from peculiar location, sensation, and modality to a person’s thinking patterns, behavioural patterns or from anywhere during the case. As every patient is an individual entity, every homoeopath is also having individualistic properties. It depends on the training and development of the clinical eye of a homoeopath, from where a homoeopath can pick a peculiarity in a given case. It also depends on the patient’s ability to give symptoms and to answer the questions.
ADVICE TO YOUNG HOMOEPATHS:
As case taking part in homoeopathic practice is an art, it requires skill. As mentioned earlier, stalwarts were used to prescribe fewer details and to bring individualising properties that required years of practice, reading and hard work. Some young homoeopaths are being charmed by the art of rapid prescription in homoeopathy. Rapid prescription in homoeopathy is a product of continuous hard work in the field of mastering materia medica and repertory. To reach that level, a young homoeopath must devote his time to understanding materia medica like a mother knows a child (E. A. FARRINGTON).
CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS:
The length of case papers or details of case papers is not the judge of case-taking qualities. Rather than arguing on lengths of case taking we should search for individualistic characteristics of the case, no matter how much detail we need to do that. The ground line in every case is: “WETHER THIS CASE IS HAVING INDIVIDUALISING, CHARACTERISTIC DATA TO PRESCRIBE HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE”.
Dr. Archit K. Mehta
M.D. (Hom.) PSYCHIATRY (scholar)
architmehta98@gmail.com
Be the first to comment