Sad to say that even though “Homeopathy” has advanced tremendously since its discovery, it has still not achieved the place that it deserves i.e. a better integration with Allopathy in treating the sick. (The Mainstay of Medical Treatment?) The main reason for this would be that it lacks integration, standardization and clarity which are necessary to impart this Art and Science in a systematic and organised manner in order to establish itself World
over, for fragments of information are scattered all over. The highly individualised approaches to finding the Simillimum for Homeopathic Treatment has denied it a “Scientific Basis” so far.
A common Link has to be established in order to make good sense of it all. Unfortunately, the fragments are held exclusively by people who do not have the time to devote to present the Bird’s eye view. But it is high-time such a thing happened. The “Obfuscation” and “Polemics” prevalent in Homeopathy due to its encompassing different related fields and its different approaches to treatment, should be sorted out and a structured Methodology of Analysis and Evaluation of symptoms be established, bringing in uniformity to a certain extent, leaving the variables due to individualisation, to be managed by applying the various principles as well as different approaches to Homeopathic Cure suitably.
This should now be possible based on the clinical trials that have been successfully conducted so far by Homeopaths world-over. It is just a matter of co-operation, sharing of knowledge and the dedication to see Homeopathy evolve to a higher level in the larger interests of its Development and Service to Mankind. Here, I would like to stress on the fact that because Hahnemann’s Homeopathy was based on Universal Laws and its fundamentals are so strongly fixed that it has survived all onslaughts for more than a century and still remains unchanged while new dimensions have been added to its development.
A Fundamental and structured approach to Methodology of Analysis and Evaluation of Symptoms in Chronic cases, leading to choosing a remedy and Potency would involve the following steps:
1. Data Collection which can definitely be standardised
2. Listing of the Common and uncommon Symptoms of Diseases.
3. Looking at different approaches of evaluating Symptoms:
Boenninghausen’s, Boger’s, Margret Tyler’s eliminating symptoms, H.A.Roberts’s, Kent’s,George Vithoulkas’s Hierarchy of symptoms, Rudi Verspoor & Steve Decker’s approach to Diseases, Rajan Sankaran’s Miasmatic Classification, Banerjee’s Miasmatic Analysis, Dr. Masi Elizade’s Miasmatic Dynamism, Grant Bentley’s Facial Analysis and many more.
4. Fixing the Levels of cure
5. Classification of Diseases as propounded by Dr. Hahnemann based on Clinical structure as well as Aetiology. (Classification Table given below)
6. Finally, Choosing the Remedy according to the following:
a) Level of cure chosen
c) Approach based on Prominent aspect of a case i.e. Mentals,
Physicals, Totality, PQRS, Suppression etc
d) Choice of Remedy from Plant, Animal or Mineral Kingdom on
its own or along with Bio chemic salts or The use of Bio-chemic
salts and Bach Flower Remedies especially in cases of Palliation.
Data Collection for Chronic cases ( for only in chronic cases do we really need to analyse deeply) can be standardised based on Patient’s narration of Symptoms, Mental symptoms, Generals, a Head to Foot Physicals & Particulars, History of Ailments especially of venereal origin, Suppressions, Nature of Ailment i.e. Intermittent, Alternating etc. and any other relevant particulars. Further, a detailed form can be standardised for different ailments focussing
on the common and uncommon symptoms of a particular Disease even though Homeopathy does not recognise Diseases by name, only by symptoms.
This modification in integrating Allopathy is necessary in order for Homeopathy to move forward in today’s Medical Environment where Patients come to a Homeopath with the Diagnosis from an Allopath. It helps differentiate between common and uncommon symptoms. Hahnemann himself has said in Aphorism 3 that a Homeopathic Physician has to have the knowledge of the Disease and in Aphorism 153 that uncommon, Strange, Peculiar symptoms have be kept in view while selecting a remedy.
With modern tools at our disposal and the advance of Allopathy, it is a crime not to make use of the Knowledge of Diseases available to us. Common symptoms help us determine the Diagnosis, prognosis and selection of cases based on chances of cure and uncommon symptoms are useful in Disease individualisation. Thus incorporation of Allopathy, and other approaches mentioned above can be done in a measured way where necessary in order to get good results but the evaluation of Symptoms should always be based on the fundamental principles of Dr. Hahnemann. No single approach is mutually exclusive, all angles should be looked at for confirmation. Only then will everything fall into place.
Once the symptoms have been elicited, it is now important to see which area of the case is prominent and accordingly look at different approaches and chose the one most suitable to the case as Robin Murphy says. Once this is done, the levels of cure from Palliation, symptom relief to cure of Functional Disturbances to Pathological
change to a change in the mental outlook should be looked at. With all the information and analysis above, a Totality is established and it becomes easy to classify and fix the Disease homeopathically as propounded by Dr. Hahnemann which is given below:
The above Classification of Diseases will help in identifying the nature and cause of Disease and once that is fixed it’s easy to chart out the prognosis and treatment of the Disease Homeopathically as laid out by Hahnemann in The Organon as well as the Chronic Diseases with the help of repertories. Here it is worth mentioning that once a Disease becomes chronic in nature, it is the Miasm that has to be treated not the Disease.(Aph 205). Hence identifying and understanding the Miasms and their Nature-their different stages- Primary, secondary and Tertiary and connected concepts like for e.g. in the tertiary stages of Sycosis and syphilis or when they become latent and reappear, the miasms combine with Psora and either appear as Psora or as a combination – is of utmost importance and all efforts should be directed towards this in order to Fix the Miasm of the patient.
In identifying a Miasm, all the different prevalent concepts should be examined until one or a few prominent aspects come up clearly. Once this is established it should be easy to find the remedy on an individual basis. But this is an area which needs to be further defined. There has been a lot of development in this area. Since Hahnemann’s Times there have been many Homeopaths like Henry Allen, H.A Roberts, George Vithoulkas, Banerjea, Masi Elizade, Rajan Sankaran, Grant Bentley, Jeremy Sherr etc to name a few who have given an excellent insight into different aspects of Miasms. Dr. Bentley has rightly said that what Hahnemann has not expressed in detail, in a systematic manner about Miasms, Henry Allen and H.A. Roberts have been able to successfully do so which has been subsequently followed by newer generation of Homeopaths. George Vithoulkas’s concept of Hierarchy of Symptoms, Rajan Sankaran’s new insights into Miasms, Masi’s concept, Rudi Vespoor and Steve Decker’s approach to Diseases and Grant Bentley’s Facial Analysis have analysed different aspects of Miasms successfully. Dr. Sherr’s portrayal of the Syphilitic Miasm through remedies is another noteworthy contribution to Miasms.
Again, instead of viewing them as separate fragments, if they are integrated under concepts of Miasms and a Gist of different concepts assimilated into a text for the benefit of students to pursue further, it would definitely be a big step forward in the Development of Homeopathy.
The repertories come in very useful as they came into being out of experience especially when we identify special conditions like alternating symptoms, peculiar symptoms, suppressions etc. However, the need of the day would be to discuss Diseases individually Allopathically- by way of symptom analysis in order to find uncommon symptoms as well as homeopathically – as to how and why diseases originate, in what form they exist in each Miasm (This would be a new insight into looking at Miasms and Diseases!) and their cure. This can now be analysed based on the Data available from the experience of successful homeopaths in treating Diseases. This is no ordinary task but if
undertaken it’ll definitely yield beneficial results for when the clinical results tell us of success stories it is wise to find the common link and relate it to the fundamental principles rather than going the other way round. This is one way of establishing the difference between True Cures and Accidental ones as also making HomeopathicTreatment more scientific. The possible outcome of this would be that a group of specific remedies will be found effective for certain conditions which is something similar along the lines of Genus EpidemicusRemedies. After all, Hahnemann emphatically came to the conclusion of usage of Arnica as the foremost remedy in injuries only by experience.
As for the Kingdoms, I would like to say in brief that a person is suited to resonate to the energy of a remedy from a particular kingdom and if used properly will give good results. The same goes for Potency too. All of these can again be standardised to a certain extent and the rest is up to the homeopath to manage the variables due to individuality.
Finally I would like to conclude by saying that Hahnemann has laid out the Principles and cure in Homeopathy very clearly which we have failed to look at as a whole, instead fragmenting it and looking at it as pieces of Jigsaw puzzles to be put together. No wonder, we are still struggling with it. It is time to think laterally rather than tangentially!