|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Forums
Courses
Shop
Diseases
Articles
Journal
Directory|
|
|||||
Interviews |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Hpathy Ezine - October, 2005 | |||||
 |
David Little<-- Interviewed by Dr. Leela D'Souza |
 |
|||
| Leela: Do you see the fact that Melanie delayed the publication of the 6th Organon more than 60 years after Hahnemann’s death as contributing to this confusion? David: Yes it is very unfortunate that the 6th
Organon was not published when persons like Boenninghausen, Hering
and Jahr were still alive. Hahnemann appeared to be grooming Boenninghausen
to help spread the word as he sent the Baron two LM cases in 1843.
Both Boenninghausen and Hering tried to obtain the manuscript but
all their efforts were in vain. This set Homoeopathy back 80 years.
By the time the 6th Organon was published in 1920 all the first
generation had passed away and no one was ready to pick up the mantle
of the new method. Leela: What about the lack of accessibility of many original documents in German or claims to inadequate or inaccurate translations of those already available? Another factor I’ve encountered is the difficulty in accurately interpreting “old” German that Hahenmann wrote which seems to contribute to a sense of suspicion at one end or possible easy misinterpretation at the other. David: The lack of access to the original German documents is a problem as most persons in Germany also ignored the early works! There is a great amount of material that needs to be researched in an honest fashion without the attachment of personal agendas for or against certain methods. In general, all the translations of the Organon are reasonable although not perfect. There will always be debates about this word or that sentence even in Germany but this is not the major problem. It is a matter of laziness and complacency found in the human mind. Many are more interested in the latest new method on the seminar circuit rather than digging through old dusty books and archives. My idea is to delve deeply into the little understood classics while reviewing the best of contemporary Homoeopathy. In a way, I am a "Renaissance man" in that one appreciates the old and new in equal light.
David: Hahnemann actually spoke to his chronic patients at least once a week at the beginning of treatment. This was so he could make the clearest assessment of the progress of his prescription at the start of the case to speed up the cure when necessary. Ask some modern homoeopaths to follow their cases more closely and they complain that they don't want to interfere in the progress of the cure. It doesn't seem to matter to them if the patient is experiencing little or no improvement over the next month or two. It is as if some like to give the single dose and forget the patient as much as possible for as long as possible. Is this what the Founder intended?
David: Unfortunately, when confronted with the possibility of change due to difficult clinical situations some retreat from future possibilities into their past attachments. When one speaks about the differences of the methods of 4th Organon compared with the methods of the 5th and 6th Organon one often hears "but the dry dose works". Of course the dry dose works, wonderfully sometimes! In some cases, however, sometimes the medicinal solution works better. Then one hears excuses like "Oh, all those medicinal solutions are just too much trouble! Why not just give a single dry dose and tell them to come back in a month, and relax!” I would like to ask some questions here. What is more important? That which is most convenient for the practitioner or what is best for the patient? Does the first aphorism of the Organon say "Do what is easiest for yourself" or does it say one's highest and sole calling is to cure the patient? Does the second aphorism of Organon say, "Treat everyone the same even if the progress is slow" and that "aggravation is good"? No, it does not. It says the highest ideal of cure is the most rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health.
I mentioned in the previous interview how blessed you have been to have your entire family working as a single unit, a team with a dedicated and single minded goal towards the homeopathic ideal. I sincerely pray that this will be the way forward for world class homeopathy in the future. David: We all need help and support to keep working year after year. The healing arts are one of the most demanding paths to take, as one is always facing disease and death. Working with like minded colleagues is very import. Everyone has their "blind spots" and working with others helps fill in the "holes". Everyone has periods where things go well and times when things seem difficult. We all have our energetic highs and lows and moments of elation and depression. Luckily, the internet has helped us to form a larger group spirit that was not available before. There are many experienced colleagues who are willing to offer advice and encouragement. Neither you nor I are as alone as we used to be!
David: Another important area of neglect is dosage management and responses. Ask some to test the medicinal solution and adjustments of the dose and they moan about patient compliance. In truth a majority of patients really like to be involved in observing their symptoms, making up their medicines, and following their progress. They LIKE the extra attention and being part of the healing process rather than only playing a passive role. It is not really the patients that are the major problem. It is the resistance of the practitioner to make changes that gets in the way. When one does have the occasional patient that is incapable of carrying any responsibility one can use methods like single olfactions or single doses on them. Speak about the LM potency and one often hears "but the Cs work just fine". Yes, they work fine some of the time but not in all cases. Are we to forget these patients? Another myth is that the LM potency is just a low potency like the 6c. This idea shows a lack of understanding of the difference in the medicinal powers of the C and LM potency. In truth one cannot compare the medicinal powers of the C and LM potency just by comparing the ratios of the original substance found in a certain degree. There is a great difference between mathematical equivalency and the medicinal powers of different preparations. The 1/50,000 ratio and 100 succussions per dilution of the LM
potency, produces a medicinal power that is completely different
than the 1/100 ratio and 10 succussions per dilution of the centesimal
potency. Linear comparisons do not take into account these qualitative
differences. Boenninghausen, who tested the LM potency, noted that
it acted as deeply as the higher C potencies although their medicinal
qualities are different. The C and LM potency are complementary
opposites that greatly expand the therapeutic horizons of the homoeopathic
pharmacy. Leela: Yes my experience has been that the LM potency has a more penetrative capacity, while the C potency has a wider spread of action, 3-dimensionally speaking. So I see types of cases that require a more ‘inclusive’ potency (C’s) while other cases require a penetrative potency (LM’s). This is apart from simple observations of aggravation and amelioration in response to the first test dose. David: Hmm. There are also some who have taken to the LM potencies who allege that Hahnemann had said the C potencies are too dangerous to use. This, however, is not what the Founder wrote. What Hahnemann said in the 6th Organon was that C potencies made on machines that gave too forceful of succussions may have furious, dangerous primary actions with little positive curative action. Did Hahnemann throw out his Cs when he made the LM potency? No, he did not! The Paris casebooks show that Hahnemann used both potencies until his last days in the clinic. Why? This is because some cases do better on the C potency and some on the LM potency while some do best with the use of both over time. Hahnemnann wrote that homoeopathy was based on knowledge of the disease state, knowledge of the remedial powers, and knowledge of how to apply the remedy to the disease state. All three of these factors must come together for a cure to take place. Just finding a remedy is not complete by itself. One must understand the disease state and how to apply the remedy properly.
David: Finding the remedy is only one half of the battle. I often see cases where the correct remedy was given in the past but it was not applied in the proper manner. Some people act as if they only need to find the remedy and pay little attention to posology and case management. In truth, many cases fail because of improper posology and case management strategies. As I said earlier, I have often taken cases where previous homoeopaths gave a good simillimum but did not know how to apply it to the patient. They just gave a dry dose and waited for a month. When it didn't work they gave another remedy and moved in the wrong direction. Many times i have just taken the same remedy and used Hahnemann's advanced posology methods and cured the patient! Sometimes, I have taken the exact same remedy and given it in a medicinal solution of the same potency and cured the case with a few doses. In other cases, I used the LM potency where the Cs have failed and it cures the case without much trouble. Some people don't even wish to test Hahnemann's statement in the Organon where he says his new methods can reduce the time of cure of slowly improving cases to 1/2, 1/4 or less than the time it takes with the single dry dose. Why not? Isn't this a claim worth testing in the clinic? Some don't wish to test Hahnemann's claim that one can reduce aggravations to a minimum with the medicinal solution. Why not? Isn't this better for the patient? Some don't wish to look at those cases that are not going very well. Why not? We have all had such cases! In truth we have just as much to learn from our failures as our successes. Perhaps, much of the time, even more.
David: I did not mature overnight. In the beginning I was practicing the 4th Organon method and believed that the size of the dose and medium one gave the remedy made no difference in the action of the medicine. I also accepted aggravations as an inevitable part of the healing process. It took 8 years before I seriously questioned what I was doing and sought any real change in my practice. It takes 5 years to learn one's basics and another 5 years to put them into practice. Then one works everyday to advance their understanding on this basis. An acorn does not become an oak tree in a moment and a individual does not become a healing artist in the twinkling of an eye. One can only "grow" into the job in accordance with nature and life. This is a natural process that unfolds as we are ready for it and are capable of integrating the experience Homoeopathy works well on a number of different levels. The methods 4th, 5th and 6th Organon all work! The dry dose works. The medicinal solution works. The C potency works. The LM potency works. It all works but in different degrees according to the time and circumstances and the needs of the patient. If one gives the single dry dose of the C potency and the patient has a strikingly progressive improvement over one or more months WONDERFUL! This is the best case scenario and the type of case everyone likes to present to others! What about all those other cases where the patient only slowly improves over a period of months? What about those who just relapse and no longer improve? What about those cases where there is a painful, prolonged aggravation? These are cases one never submits to a journal or speaks of at a seminar! In truth these are the cases we should be talking about because they are the ones that need a different approach!
David: Let me apologize in advance if it seems I am criticizing any individual. That is not my intention. I am only pointing out some of the “pitfalls of practice” and “shortfalls in education”. This is a review some of the shortcomings I have observed over the last 30 years. If what I have said has "push any buttons" there is usually no smoke without fire. I would sincerely request everyone to think these things over and decide for themselves if what I have said is helpful or not. My goal in raising these issues is to improve homoeopathic education. Teaching others is not only the passing on of information. To be a good teacher one must also understand human psychology and the obstacles that lie in the path of learning. To be a good homoeopath demands using both intuition and logic with a perfect balance of the best of the old and the best of the new. To be a good human being demands compassion and a willingness to work for the welfare of others. Let us all move forward in this spirit.
David: I would like to thank you for inviting
me to sit on the “hot seat” and feeding the stove. I
figured such an illustrious position deserves a little heat so I
let off a bit of "steam" (chuckle). I hope that what I
have offered is taken in the positive light in which it was indented.
Last of all, I would like to say that the role of a senor homoeopath
is to prepare the next generation and share their experience with
their peers. I hope that the Homoeopathic Compendium will contribute
to this process and help to develop the medicine of the future. All the best, |
|||||
| <-- Previous -- | |||||
|
|||||
