It's truly wonderful that once again you have shown yourself to have slyly
outwitted shortsighted, narrowminded, foolish old Hahnemann in the elegance
of your dazzlingly original solution to the problem he was, you say, unable
to solve -- the problem of complex diseases -- your own original solution
being simply to assume whatever you like and throw the pharmacopeia at the
patient in "judicious alternation" that is all the wiser for lacking any
judiciousness whatsoever.
The blitheness with which you so cast multiple medicines of the
pharmacopeia on the basis of either similarity or oppositeness is all the
more remarkable for the blithering nincompoopery that claims that your
genius at once follows and does not follow Hahnemann's explicit direction
to use no more than a single, simple medicine at any time. Truly thou art
master of the mixed message.
I had thought it strange, in light of your previous intimacy with it, to
have your agreement that polypharmacy is inherently unhomoeopathic. But
you've revealed all. Your hilarious exclusion, from *your* rendition of
polypharmacy, of all simultaneously acting medicines, and even simultaneous
prescriptions, *not physically mixed together* places you once again not
merely above us mere mortals (as well as above Hahnemann; see, for
instance, the quote I provided for you in footnote 4), but on another
planet entirely. You are indeed very, very special.
So, Irene, in your practice and advocacy, homoeopathy -- as the dictionary
has it, if you've entirely forgotten the word's meaning -- must again yield
to your dissection of the patient into various discrete parts for purposes
of your multiple prescriptions. And you care not one jot that in
administering these multiple medicines without first assessing the result
of the previous prescription (as Hahnemann *four times* in §§ 68 to 71 [all
quoted for you in footnote 2] insisted is necessary *before* administering
a second single, simple medicine), you do so injudiciously.
Had you read any of the short passages I'd footnoted for you (I've retained
it below for its further possibilities) and had you comprehended it, you
would have realised that in treating parts of the patient as separable from
other parts for the purposes of prescription, your approach -- as well as
being facile, allopathic, and by definition polypharmaceutical -- crosses
the line that the man whom you claim to be consistent with illuminates in
those passages. You would have realised that the prescription of multiple
medicines simultaneously for the various complaints of the one patient was
neither more nor less than eighteenth-century allopathy dressed in the
scavenged tatty *rags* of a superior "homoeopathy".
Your injudiciousness in staking patients' safety upon your smug convictions
rather than upon comprehension, caution, or humility at the extent of your
vast ignorance bespeaks a great deal of hot air inflating the egotism of
your claims to original thought via the intellectual sludge that turns
everything Hahnemann said into its opposite.
The delusions you express being plainer to your perception than is
reality, I hold little hope that, unlike its effects on some of the
illiterates who used to echo you, a public roasting will do you the benefit
of causing you to entertain the least self-doubt. But I'll certainly give
it a good try, if only for the sake of your patients. I do appreciate that
you're unlikely to take a moment to read, below, what Hahnemann wrote on
the subject and to realise what a complete fool you have made yourself out
to be; but one lives in hope.
Yours in acknowledgement of our common ignorance --
John
P.S. To save you and your polypathic friends from having to point out that
I belittled your integrity, intelligence, and character and so piqued your
overweening pride: yes, thank you, that's what I intended to do. Now get
some education. If your only purpose in pursuing conversations on this
list is to have your lazy prejudices and empty-headed vanities confirmed,
then you've missed its point entirely. Take an attitude less self-precious
and more self-critical, less self-absorbed and more doubtful, less
self-promoting and more wondering, and you may one day find that somewhere
along the line you overcame your own useless uncritical stupidities and
actually helped somebody other than yourself.
*[1]* § 7, fn 4: "A single one of the symptoms present is no more the
disease itself than a single foot is the man himself."
*[2]* § 168: "And thus we go on, if even this medicine be not quite
sufficient to effect the restoration of health, *examining again and again
the morbid state that still remains*, and selecting a homoeopathic medicine
as suitable as possible for it, until our object, namely, putting the
patient in the possession of perfect health, is accomplished."
§ 169: "If… the totality… would not be effectually covered by the disease
elements of a single medicine -- owing to the insufficient number of known
medicines -- but that two medicines contend for the preference in point of
appropriateness *it is not advisable, after the employment of the more
suitable of the two medicines, to administer the other without fresh
examination*, and much less to give both together (§ 272, note), for the
medicine that [had] seemed to be the next best would not, under the change
of circumstances that has in the meantime taken place, be suitable for the
rest of the symptoms that then remain; in which case, consequently, a more
appropriate homoeopathic remedy must be selected in place of the second
medicine for the set of symptoms as they appear on a new inspection."
§ 170: "Hence in this as in every case where a change of the morbid state
has occurred, *the remaining set of symptoms now present must be enquired
into*, and (without paying any attention to the medicine which at first
[had] appeared to be the next in point of suitableness) another
homoeopathic medicine, as appropriate as possible to the new state now
before us, must be selected."
§ 171: "In non-venereal chronic diseases… we often require, in order to
effect a cure, to give several antipsoric remedies in succession, every
successive one being homoeopathically chosen in consonance with the group
of symptoms remaining after completion of the action of the previous
remedy."
*[3]* George Vithoulkas, *The Science of Homoeopathy*.
*[4]* § 273: "In no case under treatment is it necessary [or] therefore *
permissible* to administer to a patient more than one single, simple
medicinal substance at one time."
§ 274: "[The true physician] will… never think of giving as a remedy any
but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because…
it is [nevertheless] impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal
substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on
the human body… and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not
chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does
no good, it is [nevertheless] so far useful that it promotes our knowledge
of therapeutic agents… by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case… an
advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies."
*[5]* § 7, fn 4: "A single one of the symptoms present is no more the
disease itself than a single foot is the man himself."
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen