HARDCORE HOMOEOPATHY PRESCRIBING

by Dr. Rajesh Shah

Background:
In the last 200 years the science of homoeopathy has witnessed and withstood numerous ups and downs, criticism and growth, failures and successes. It has withstood change due to socio-economic factors, political factors, external factors, as well as change due to internal (within the homoeopathic fraternity) factors. It has withstood the ultimate test of time. The period from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century has seen the influence of American homoeopaths notably Hering, Kent, and Allen .The latter part of the twentieth century has seen the resurgence of classical homoeopathy with the dominating influence of Vithoulkas, Tyler, Weir and Shepherd in the west and Bose, Sarkar and Dhawale in the east. India has always played a substantial role by absorbing developments from all over the world and passing the benefits to the masses.

Changing Trend:
With the rejuvenation of classical homoeopathy in Europe (Post Vithoulkas era) a large number of young homoeopaths took to active practice . Similarly India also saw an influx of young practitioners in the profession. (As proof, most practitioners are in their mid-thirties in India). A requirement for the growth of any science is the infusion of young blood. It is for this reason that the youth deserve the credit for the upsurge of homoeopathy among the laity.

Youth, Ambition, Haste...
The last two decades have seen the dominance of youth in homoeopathy the world over. A characteristic of the youth is that they boldly pursue new ideas and are not hampered by convention. In homoeopathy, too, the young practitioners have advocated several new or even radical approaches. Some of these approaches, particularly those related to case analysis, have been widely accepted by the fraternity. This acceptance has spurred some homoeopaths into adopting new untried (inadequately experimented) techniques in a hasty manner.

From Innovation to Speculation:
Some of the radical approaches that have been too hastily adopted, have created confusion in the fraternity. This is because these techniques are not as successful as their propagators claim. For example, dream analysis. According to this new approach the patients' dreams have to be evaluated to get a feel of the patient and thereby selecting a remedy that will fit the similimum. The traditional approach is to select the remedy under a particular dream or to select a remedy which causes the dream. The new approach rejects the traditional approach and says that each dream has to be evaluated for its significance and based on this a remedy should be proposed. Now a dream is highly subjective and each dream can be interpreted in 10 different ways by 10 different practitioners. This approach has crossed the boundary from innovation to, speculation. An examination of any scientific journal will show that a lot of homoeopathic case studies involve speculation. The scientific foundations of homoeopathy are in danger of being corroded by speculation.

Any science is founded on bedrock theories. All theories start as speculation. The speculation is subjected to experimentation, criticism, alteration and even outright rejection. It is only when the speculation has stood the test of time, it is accepted as a theory.

Time to come-back:
The end of the second century requires that the homoeopathic community be alert and go back to its roots. The basis of prescription, as Hahnemann propounded, should be only drug proving: the simple matching of the patient's history and symptoms, to the drug proving data. Innovation and imagination are very much needed for progress but they should not result in the scrapping of reality.