Posted by: marek
Sir,
As we know homeopathy is based on the law of similars.
And almost from the beginning there are two different ways of prescribing remedies. One we can call “unum remedium”, others are giving more than one remedy in time. Those of “unum remedium” school call themself “real homeopaths”, “classical homeopaths”. But as I think this rule doesn`t come from the law of similars. It is becouse Hahnemann said so. Even Hahnemann agreed that giving more than one remedy is not against that law.
And another problem. Many conventional doctors say that only them can be homeopaths. No one who is not a MD can not be a homeopath. Do you agree with it?
These are very good questions.
On the concept of using a single remedy versus multiple remedy, you are right that this has put a lot of tension among homeopaths… some people are in between and agree that you can give several remedies at the same time to treat different issues, but not several remedies to treat one specific issue. In Germany, the spiritual home of homeopathy, complex homeopathy, which uses several remedies, is very common. You need to see by experience what fits better. In my experience, it depends on the patient, some do better on single remedies, if there is one key issue or theme in their life, and some do better on several remedies, if they have different issues.
Hpathy has a wealth of information on this topic, and I invite you to browse the site. Here are some good starters:
Using More Than One Remedy In A Case: What Would Hahnemann Say?
Some countries ban non-doctors to prescribe homeopathy, and others accept laymen to be homeopaths. A homeopath should abide with the law of the land. A good homeopath needs to have a good understanding of anatomy, physiology and the effects of conventional drugs, but does not need to be a doctor in my view.
Sir, My question was different. I was asking if the rule of “unum remedium” comes from law of similars? In my opinion: NOT. It is only because Hahnemmann decided to do it this way. But the law of similars can be fulfilled even if one is giving more than one remedy at a time.
If you accept that the similar remedy will cure, why would you want to give less similar remedies? The idea of the single remedy follows logically and works clinically. In addition, it doesn’t confuse the case.
What I`m saying is that the rule of “unum remedium: doesn`t come from the law of similars. I`m saying that giving more than one remedy at a time is not against that law and very often works faster, smoothly and more efficient.
Hahnemann decided to administrate one remedy only because to be different than alopaths. They were prescribing many remedies at a time. Sorry for my English.
Dear Marek,
The observation of omoion (similars) as a law of natural therapeutics can only be reproduced, or tested, when a single substance (independent of the number of constituents or ingredients – e.g. nat-carb.), tested as a single entity (in methodical provings or toxicology), is given as that same substance in the treatment of similar illness.
Validation requires reproducibility – the withstanding of falsification – so unless the single substance be given, there can be no claim to applying similars.
There can be no argument on this most basic premise which is consistent with modern scientific practice.
You will find no disagreement amongst homoeopaths on this point. Those prescribing multiple remedies at the same time are not practicing Homoeopathy – simple. They may claim they are experimenting – and they have that liberty as physicians – but they have no such liberty to call that Homoeopathy.
To practice Homoeopathy without limitation, one must have a full comprehension of the basic medical sciences, as well as pathophysiology, experience in clinical situations, etc., but it cannot be necessary to be trained “allopathically” in order to practice homoeopathically – in other words, the allopathic perspectives of clinical and pathological processes are not only unnecessary, but also inhibitory and prove a real obstacle for a allopath wising to investigate and experiment with a homoeopathic application of medicine. Having said that, I see examples of even the greatest homoeopaths who commenced their medical careers as allopaths – Hahnemann is the best example of all.
DEAR DR,
SINGLE REMEDY OR TWO OR MORE COMBINED ARE NOT AGAINST HOMEOPATHIC PRINCIPLE. WE HAVE TO SEE THAT SINGLE REMEDY IS SIMILAR TO DISEASE OR COMBINATION IS MORE SIMILAR TO DISEASE. DR SHOULD NOT CREAT IN THE MIND OF PATIENT THAT DR IS USING A TRIAL METHOD. HIS HOPE IN HOMEOPTHY WILL BE RUINED IF CURE IS NOT EARLY.
REGARDS
DR SHEKHAR