If One Remedy Fails

Peace friends! Sometimes the debates are getting a bit too heated with the use of uncivil language. I request the forum members to please have some restraint.

Now let me, as an Indian homeopath - who regularly sees both metropolitan as well as rural patients; has read, met, interviewed Sankaran and has used his approach; has 15 years of homeopathy behind him and most of it the classical homeopathy of Hahneman, Vithoulkas et al - post my opinion about this sensitive issue.

The reason you are both feeling that the other one is 'arrogant' is because of your 'conviction' in what you have seen and experienced. There is truth in the experiences of both David and Kaviraj and the truths do converge at one point but you are unable to see it.

Regarding the use of sensation method in rural patients. I personally feel it is not the problem of 'rural' or illiterate patients. There is a lot of health ignorance and personal neglect here and patients here are often not very verbose. They expect the doctor to know what's wrong with them. They are conditioned that way. I remember once a patient came to me and thrust forward his arm (to chk the pulse). I asked 'what's wrong with you?'. He said 'that is what you are supposed to tell me! Check my pulse, tell me what is wrong and give me medicine'. I was stumped!

But this is one extreme of spectrum. I see the inability to share in both the rural as well as metropolitan patients. Educated class does 'communicate' better but it is no guarantee that they will give you a good case. I think it depends less upon the class and more upon the individuality of the patient and the intensity of the complaint and sensation - that makes them express it. Many illiterate patients express their sensations very beautifully - it comes from within.

So what kaviraj has experienced in India is true to a large extent but at the same time what David is saying about the expression of sensation and perception is also true. These are 'your' truths derived from 'your' experiences. They are not absolute truths - life is all shades of gray!
Please give each other space to express and share his experiences and learn from them instead of fighting over who is right.

Now the big question - Do Sankaran's methods work? I cannot give a definite answer but my experience so far has been that I cannot take all my cases to that level. A significant majority of patients get better when I use simple Boennighausen/Hahnemann approach, so I also do not feel the need to go Sankaran's way in every case. Yet there are cases where I have been helped by some of his concepts about the way sensations manifest at different levels in an individual case. I think most of his ideas need thorough clinical investigation but denying them outrightly would be like throwing the baby with the bath water!

Originally posted by Manish Bhatia  I remember once a patient came to me and thrust forward his arm (to chk the pulse). I asked 'what's wrong with you?'. He said 'that is what you are supposed to tell me! Check my pulse, tell me what is wrong and give me medicine'. I was stumped!

This is very common.

As Manish said, it's all a very INDIVIDUAL response -
Sometimes education seems to hamper a person's ability to give us the wanted necessary details.
Sometimes it's the person's environment that makes them think that the doctor will know all without expecting any input from the patients themselves.
Sometimes it's their inherent traits of being talkative or non-communicative that can help or hamper.

When I started practice in Panvel (a small township on the outskirts of Mumbai) about 10 years ago, there was absolutely no awareness about homoeopathy and the case taking it involved. However, I still found some very 'rural' types giving the most amazing histories. Many of course, did not like the idea of giving so much detail. I needed to tell every patient in the beginning what the history session would involve and why it was necessary. Most people were cooperative.

I still remember one of my favourite little patients - a Bengali boy of 5 - without any prompting or questioning, this child gave me such great details about his cough. Everything; type of cough, cause, triggers, ameliorating factors, concomitants, etc.  I was astonished and impressed. I remember thinking, that being Bengali, he must have had homoeopathy in his genes...

I remember a case of a nurse consulted me through e- mail.I was astonished to read the symptoms.They were so accurate and helpful that with first prescription she got well.This consultation was free.

I am very happy with the idea that people can practice either way with success. I certainly do not believe that the more traditional method does not work, and I use both in clinic depending on the circumstances.

Everybody can best follow the 'method' that gives them the most satisfactory results. As David said, it boils down to using different methods to arrive at the ultimate goal of finding the best possible remedy for a patient.

It is obvious that those who use the Sensation Method are very happy with it. They wouldn't be using it if it wasn't working for them. Same for those who follow the traditional method properly. To each his own, isn't it.

There is no harm if we discuss different methods, after all, it can be an enriching learning experience. Anything learnt is never wasted. Those who don't agree may choose to disagree, but cordially. There is no need to get into Sankaran-bashing, as David puts it.

I am simply not going to waste anymore of my time on this. I will add my last bit here, for the biased and narrow minded. He who fits the shoe....

"Telling me to 'stick it' is an interesting way of debating with me."

If one cannot say what one thinks about a "method" and about "new miasms" and state that one disagrees withouth repeatedly being told one is wrong - yes then stick it.
If such is also interpreted as "Sankaran bashing", then the silliness reaches the summit. I talk about the method and the miasms and consider both to be faulty and disagree with them. I don't really care who made the system, because i disagree with system builders of any type. If i get told repeatedly that I am wrong to disagree, I get heated, yes.
Telling me I am wrong for disagreeeing is at least as interesting a way to debate with me.
It reaches shore nor key.

I find that also extemely arrogant and superficial to boot - shows me they read what they want to read instead of reading what has been said. If i moreover explain extensively from my practical experience why i disagree and then are again told i am wrong - the discussion becomes personal. If that is what you want to dish out, you gotta learn to take it too.

I find both the miamsms and the method not worth my while to use and the concepts both speculative and unnecessary. I have already said that if anyone is happy with it, i wish them all success with it.

David needs to learn to read, apart from extensively writing cases down.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Originally posted by oriam Do you reject Hahnemann because he refined his work?

No.
And I don't reject Dr. Sankaran because he refines his work, either.
Siegfried