Elaine responds to feedback from her article of last month regarding the use of more than one remedy in a case.
I’ve gotten a lot of feedback like this one on the article I wrote about giving more than one remedy in a case (see last month’s ezine: May, 2010):
“I have read the article/interview about use of multiple remedies as the case demands by Elaine Lewis. It is a very interesting and useful article and I am very impressed with the way Dr Lewis treated a case of kidney failure, liver problems, cancer, oedema, etc. Some doctors do not want to go a step further than what according to them Hahnemann said in Organon about using a single remedy. They call it classical homoeopathy. They forbid doctors to use more than one remedy. As I understand by single remedy, it means that doctors should not mix two or more remedies. Single remedy means giving one remedy at a time. After a gap of few hours you can give a second indicated remedy and after another hour even a third indicated remedy. We need to step forward from where Dr Hahnemann left us. There is need to constantly endeavour to improve our way of treatment. Starting treatment with very high potencies often produces severe aggravation which continues for weeks and even sometimes for months. So, instead of starting from CM potency, start with 30C to 200C. When these potencies stop working only then go to 1M potency or still bettter to change the remedy in 30C to 200C. There is a huge gap between 200C and 1000C. We should not jump from 200 to 1000. Unfortunately, remedies between 200C and 1000C are not available in our country. In USA and some other advanced countries, doctors have potency raising machines. They can give 300C potency after 200C. Dr Kent has mentioned such potencies in his books.
–Dr Jaswant S Matharu, Delhi
This is a very nice letter and I agree, especially about the plea to not to start cases off with CM potency, which seems crazy to me (see my article “Case Management in a Hop, Skip and a Jump” in this month’s issue: http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/case-management-in-a-hop-skip-and-a-jump/), but I see there is slight confusion regarding “mixing” vs. “alternating”, as I knew there would be.
Dr. Matharu says, “As I understand by single remedy means that doctors should not mix two or more remedies.”
Actually, this is true. Doctors should not “mix” two or more remedies. If a patient has mulitple diseases/conditions, one should first try to ascertain which of those conditions is causing the most suffering and start from there with a single remedy that matches the suffering at hand.
Any SUFFERING in the case should be a priority. Suffering is an energy-leak, and nothing good can come of treating the so-called “chief complaint” while the suffering continues unabated. For example, a breast cancer patient with a sprained ankle needs a sprained ankle remedy, like Bryonia or Rhus Tox. When the acute aspect of the case is under control, you can then ask, “What’s the worst thing now?” Maybe it will be apparent to you because you’ll see that the patient is having trouble breathing, or swallowing or something else that you can’t ignore. I have heard from a patient recently whose homeopath is so “classical” that he will NOT give a remedy for her suffering because he has already administered “THE SINGLE REMEDY” that is supposed to cure the whole case, and, by golly, he’s sticking to it! (Only, I can hear Hahnemann right now shouting, “You idiot! Your patient’s doubled over in pain, give her Colocynth!”)
What if everything, every “disease”, in the case is equally pressing? This is when you have to do as Hahnemann said in aph. 40 of the Organon and alternate remedies that apply to each dissimilar disease. This could mean giving a breast cancer remedy in the morning, and a diabetes remedy in the afternoon. This is not the same as “mixing two or more remedies”. Heaven knows we have homeopaths who are doing that! I recently heard from a patient whose homeopath had prescribed 8 or 10 remedies, all to be taken at once, three times a day! This is not homeopathy, this is insanity!
Alternating remedies to deal with two or more dissimilar diseases or presentations in a case is not “mixing”. You will certainly see this in injuries–broken bones, scrapes and cuts, bruises, fright, anxiety, panic–one remedy cannot possibly be homeopathic to all these presentations! You can start with the panic by giving Aconite and then give Arnica for the bruising, and Calendula for the scrapes and cuts, and so on. This is not “mixing”, this is a “complex disease” and remedies have to be alternated!
I don’t think we need to “step forward from where Hahnemann left us” because most of us don’t even know where Hahnemann left us! Let’s get to that first; let’s get up to speed, then we can go forward if we have to. Everything I’ve said so far is in the Organon; I don’t know how or when we all became “psychiatrists”; but, homeopathy is for injuries and disease and infections; so, let’s learn how to do that.