Contemporary Developments in Materria Medica and Hahnemanns Instruction - Essay Example

TO WHAT EXTENT DO, OR INDEED SHOULD, CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS IN MATERRIA MEDICA ADHERE TO HAHNEMANNS INSTRUCTION? Instructor: Date due: Introduction Homeopathy is a category of medicine that was first utilized by a German scientist and linguist called Samuel Hahnemann. He developed homeopathy as a result of his distrust of medical practices of the time since he noted that they increased the suffering instead of treating the patients. Homeopathy is based on the ‘like cures like’ philosophy developed by Hahnemann. It explains that an agent that causes a certain illness in healthy people is capable of producing a healing effect in sick people with the same symptoms. These remedies are usually subjected to tests, involving dilution with distilled water or alcohol, or grinding of insoluble substances with lactose (trituration). The mixture is then shaken vigorously and struck against an elastic surface to nullify the adverse health effects of the poison. Homeopaths usually rely on two kinds of references when making prescriptions i.e. the materia medica and repertories. A homeopathic materia medica consists of “drug pictures” arranged alphabetically according to the remedy. The entries in a materia medica describe the symptom patterns linked to various remedies. A homeopathic repertory lists remedies and their associated disease symptoms. Different compliers may not agree with the inclusion of various remedies, in either case. As a result, several versions or types of modern homeopathy have developed each justifying its means and remedies. However, some homeopaths insist that homeopathy should be practiced in the same way that Hahnemann described in the 18th century. A lot of controversies have emerged regarding the extent to which developments in the materia medica should adhere to the initial instructions of Hahnemann. It is also being debated whether these developments should indeed adhere to Hahnemann’s ideals of the 18th century. Different proving methods A homeopathic proving usually refers to the process through which new remedies are learned, to be used for homeopathic treatment. Provings are usually done with the help of provers (healthy people taking a certain homeopathic remedy). The provers are monitored for any symptoms arising from administration of the remedy, after which the supervisor collectively analyzes the symptoms to create the foundations for the remedy picture. Provings are more than simple experiments involving new remedies. In a broader perspective, they are methods through which one can experience the energy of a substance; consequently, whenever we engage ourselves in a field of energy of a particular substance, we are proving remedies. This concept explains why it is common for students to experience symptoms of a remedy while studying the remedy or teachers while teaching. Also, someone who is preparing a remedy may also experience the same symptoms (Rowe 2009, p.46). Samuel Hahnemann developed an excellent proving methodology that was very detailed and clear. However, it was not exactly the best, and several flaws have been identified by scholars over the years. For instance, his proving were never blinded, and they mostly involved male provers. He also performed the proving within three days which was a very short period for making any conclusions, among several other shortcomings (Rowe 2009, p.46; Dimitriadis 2007, p.3). As a result, several proving methods are continually being developed by homeopaths each providing good results. Modern proving methodologies adopt both scientific and intuitive models. Some of them, such as the C4 proving methodology, have been claimed to be as effective as the original method proposed by Hahnemann. These methods include: Partial provings A partial proving will involve the Hahnemann methodology of proving, only that it is shortened. Examples include cases where a practitioner or a group proves a single remedy that is followed up for just a few days. The main disadvantage with this kind of methodology is the fact that clear results may not be obtained. However, it concentrates majorly on time, resource and energy savings, thus provides a quick way of providing remedies without having to invest heavily in the process (Owen 2007, p.22). Usually, these provings are done on already established remedies, with the aim of directly experiencing the remedy and are not recommended for purposes of publication C4 provings It is also based on the initial instructions of homeopathy, whereby the practitioner is encouraged to prepare the remedy himself through trituration. It usually involves trituration up to the C4 level. The C1 trituration is usually thought to represent the physical level whereas the C2, C3, and C4 the emotional, mental and spiritual levels respectively (Timmerman 2015 para 3). Homeopaths that practice C4 trituration usually base the rationale on the section 265 of The Organon which states that the patient should receive the correct remedy from the practitioner, as prepared by the practitioner himself. Dream provings This methodology involves a process where the prover accepts the remedy and then records their ensuing dreams. The prover may take the remedy but in most cases, they usually hold on to it, meditate on it, or sleep with the remedy under their pillow. This process has the advantage of simplicity, ease of administration and less commitment by the prover and supervisor. However, it is also discouraged on the grounds of the quality and reliability of the results obtained. Also, it concentrates so much on the emotional symptoms, ignoring the physical ones, and the prover may get confused with the symptoms of the remedy and their own situation (Fraser 2012, p.14). Meditative provings This method usually involves prolonged periods of contemplation by provers in a group while they hold on a specific homeopathic remedy. It is usually criticized as very inefficient and distant from the conventional instructions of Hahnemann. When conducted by a group of experienced provers, it can be a very quick way of gaining widespread information about a particular remedy (Evans 2000, p.2). It is also not invasive and does not take a lot of time. However, the shortcoming presents itself through the fact that it is a shortcut, thus is capable of missing the subtle, important information that most people would not recognize (Fraser 2012, p.15). Thought provings Thought provings manifest when a teacher or student experiences the effects of various remedies while teaching (homeopathic teacher syndrome) or studying (homeopathic student syndrome) them. These phenomena are usually as a result of immersing oneself into the energy of the remedy, thus is capable of experiencing the symptoms of the remedy (Rowe 2009, p.46). This method is reliable as it represents the principles of homeopathy directly. Concerns Homeopathy is a distinct field of medicine which is normally purported to contrast mainstream science in most areas, especially with regards to research methods. Research is important for the development of knowledge since a lot of information is discovered daily, and improvements made to traditional ways of doing things. The same case applies for homeopathy, where it is important to come up with new ways of doing things. These ways are acceptable as long as the means fall within the general motive of enhancing the quality of life by avoidance and treatment of illnesses. Most homeopathic practices today build on the knowledge brought forward by Hahnemann, only differing in a few aspects. There are new ways of homeopathic provings that have created a lot of debate, particularly among the homeopaths who insist on strictly abiding by the original Hahnemann instructions. Some of these issues are explained in the sections below. An advantage of using new methods of proving is the inclusion of diverse methods in the proving process. One method may fail to identify certain symptoms of a remedy, but the deficit may be covered by another method. For instance, most of the proving methodologies today, such as meditative provings, take a very short time and may miss out on important aspects of a remedy. However, the information may be complemented by another method, such as C4 trituration, thus produce a more complete picture of the remedy. Diversity is important especially in the field of medicine because diseases are varied, and remedies need to be in the same manner. Diversity has also been demonstrated by certain methodologies that employ multi-centered proving trials and repeated provings. This approach has been instrumental in providing reliable results because it allows remedies to be tested in different cultures and in various environments. This methodology is important since it raises the issue of localized bias present in most conventional proving methodologies. Hahnemann did not perform such provings, but it does not mean that they are not valid. Strictly adhering to the instructions of Hahnemann also poses the risk of impeding new discoveries in the field of homeopathy. Discoveries are usually arrived at through an exploratory process that involves, in most cases, going out of the ordinary. It may be true that practices in medicine at the time of Hahnemann were predominantly flawed, thus the need for an alternative method. However, most fields of knowledge have improved markedly over the past two centuries and are now widely accepted as standard methods of doing things. Similarly, homeopathy should embrace constant development aimed at improving the practice. The most important aspect should be treating sick people; consequently, any new practices that point toward that direction should be encouraged. These developments include new ways of making provings. Another issue lies in the publication of results from different types of provings. Most homeopaths recommend publication of remedy pictures obtained by a thorough examination of remedy symptoms. Certain methods, such as dream provings may not be considered valid for publication by some homeopaths. The main reason may be because dream provings do not reflect the complete essence of a remedy since they lean mostly on the emotional symptoms while covering much less of the physical. Also, other methods such as meditative provings may present the same challenges. However, depending on the specialty of the homeopath, any method can be applicable judging from experience, and also the specific needs of the patient. Also, a lot of knowledge becomes outdated with time. It would, therefore, be wise to adopt current knowledge, as long as it provides better results. The primary reason for the development of homeopathy was because of the widespread inadequacies of medicine during Hahnemann’s time, but the situation has changed, and most diseases are now being treated and prevented through patient-friendly measures. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary approach has been proven to be the best method of handling illnesses today. As a result, homeopathy should consider implementing certain changes in their materia medica to reflect the correct situation as far as healthcare is concerned. Outdated information should be disregarded, and new processes adopted to achieve the best care for homeopathic patients. An example is Hahnemann’s opinion of the physician using himself as a prover. Although he advocates this, most homeopaths today would beg to differ, based on their experiences and current literature (Rowe 2009, p.49). The health of the provers is also another concern that is raised by the different proving processes. It is difficult to determine a perfectly healthy person, although it is a fundamental requirement for provers as per the initial Hahnemann instructions. Different methodologies may overlook certain health problems in the provers since it is difficult to find a perfectly healthy person in practice. Furthermore, provings may be conducted and result in the cure of reported symptoms, thus contributing invaluable information about the homeopathic remedy being tested. If the individuals had been without these symptoms initially, then the cures would not have been realized. Therefore, abiding by Hahnemann’s instructions may not be the best option in all cases. Among the core values of homeopathy is the individualistic approach in determining the remedy for disease symptoms. Such an approach is unlikely to adhere to a set standard or a predetermined ideal that is meant to apply to all patients. From this perspective, it would not be right to adhere strictly to a proving process that was developed a couple of centuries ago when establishing the remedy for patients today. Dosage is particularly important in this respect, both in the proving and treatment processes. Furthermore, most disease symptoms are usually highly individualistic, therefore, using the same remedy for different patients may not be the best option. However, there are certain values that are upheld in homeopathy and should not be violated unless there is enough evidence against them. Individualistic treatment is one of these values. There is also the concern of the length of time that provers should be followed up. In literature, it is accepted that a prover should be followed up until the symptoms from the proving are completely resolved. Also, a prover who shows improvement in their constitutional symptoms should be followed up until the symptoms have subsided completely (Herseu 2002; Sherr & Grimes1994, p.2). In practice, however, the duration of follow-up is still controversial. Hahnemann followed up his provers for three days before making conclusions that the remedies were not effective. Some have argued that both secondary and primary symptoms be followed up (Rowe 2009, p.6) while others follow up the provers for up to six months. Following up patients for too long produces biased information. Such results only represent the human condition rather than the symptoms of the proving. On the other hand, short durations of follow-up may not record important information about the remedy. Based on his experience, Rowe (2009) recommends a follow-up of up to one month after administration of the remedy (p.51). Strictly abiding by a set standard regardless of the situation also creates the notion that homeopathy may be more of a religion than a field of medicine. Healthcare and science, in general relies on exploration and evidence as opposed to blind belief. Homeopathy, being among the various scientific practices, should not be treated any different. Thus, it is advisable that every practitioner in the discipline of homeopathy be open-minded and adopt the best available curative measures that help the patient, rather than blindly imposing predetermined standards. However, exploration should not surpass the boundaries of homeopathy, and the patient remains the main focus of treatment. Benefits The emergence of alternative proving methods has got several benefits. All of these methods are improvements to the conventional methodology developed by Hahnemann and rely on several principles of homeopathy as described in The Organon. One of the major benefits of these methodologies is time-saving. A majority of them take very less time to come up with results, as compared to the traditional methods. For instance, meditative provings may take not more than three and a half hours to prove a remedy. The same case applies to other methods including C4 trituration. Through time saving, acute illnesses are managed better, and many lives saved. Also, a lot of resources are saved in the process. The longer a proving methodology takes, the more the resources used. Although there are methodologies that may take longer than the conventional three days according to Hahnemann, most methodologies today do not exceed one month. Resources, including time, finances, and other requirements are important to conserve since it increases the efficiency of the process. In addition, if good results are obtained from the process, it will be economical to utilize it to come up with more remedies. This way, it becomes beneficial to the supervisor, provers, and patients. Different methodologies are capable of producing different symptoms of the same remedy. The varied durations and activities involved in the proving processes produce various symptoms, all of which are valid in their contexts. This diversity is important since it shows the effect of a remedy in different circumstances, thus is capable of treating various conditions or disease variants. These benefits are as a result of the modification of the initial instructions from Hahnemann and have I proved the practice of homeopathy significantly. More disease conditions have been diagnosed and treated successfully since the development of the practice in the late 18th century. Homeopathy has also evolved and become more popular as a result of the diverse proving methodologies. Homeopathy is now being used to treat a wide range of illnesses today, despite being branded a pseudoscience by allopathic practitioners (Chibeni 2001, p.92). More information is also being produced every day as a result of this diversification. However, it also poses the risk of encountering imposter homeopaths since information is predominantly available to most people today. Consequently, it would be advisable for patients to familiarize themselves with the concepts of homeopathy so that they can avoid falling into the hands of fake homeopaths Conclusion In conclusion, we cannot point specifically to what extent proving methodologies may deviate from the initial instructions by Hahnemann. A proving method is sound as long as it achieves the most important purpose of determining the symptoms of a remedy as stipulated by the principles of homeopathy. However, several guidelines should not be violated, especially if they put the patient’s life at risk. Furthermore, he claims that “Let all that is supposition, merely, asserted of even fabricated, be entirely excluded from materia medica.” (Hahnemann 1996, section 144) Any remedy that has not been proven, therefore, should not be included in the materia medica. The patients remain the principle focus of any proving methodology and it is the practitioner’s duty to make sure that they have comprehension to handle diseases (Hahnemann 1996, p.60) Homeopaths are free to use any proving methodology that they feel is important or necessary to determine the symptoms of a remedy. Hahnemann specifies that a practitioner should ensure that they give the patient the highest ideal of sure which he describes as: “The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health; that is, the lifting and annihilation of the disease in its entire extent in the shortest, most reliable, and least disadvantageous way, according to clearly realizable [in-seeable] principles.” (p.60) Therefore, if a proving methodology falls within this criterion of cure, a practitioner is allowed to use it. Most of the provings discussed above are consistent with Hahnemann’s ideal of cure, therefore, should not be refuted without clear evidence. However, it is important to note that keen studies are required in all these studies to establish the exact relationship between a particular remedy and the symptoms associated with it. Any practitioner in the field of homeopathy is required to have an extensive understanding of the process, not just knowing the methodology involved. Bibliography CHIBENI, S. S. (2001). On the scientific status of homeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal, 90(2), 92-98. DIMITRIADIS, G. (2007). Hahnemanns Pharmacography. American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine, 100(3). EVANS, M. (2000). Meditative provings: notes on the meditative provings of new remedies. York, UK, Rose Press. FRASER, P. (2012). Using Provings in Homeopathy. HAHNEMANN, S. (1996). Organon of the medical art. W. B. OReilly (Ed.). Birdcage Books. HERSCU, P. (2002). Provings–With a Proving of Alcoholus. New England School of Homeopathy Press OWEN, D. K. (2007). Principles and practice of homeopathy: the therapeutic and healing process. Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. ROWE, T. (2009). Provings: Then, now and future. The homoeopath, 28(2), 46. SHERR, J., & GRIMES, M. K. (1994). The dynamics and methodology of homoeopathic provings. West Malvern, UK: Dynamis Books. TIMMERMAN, A. (2015). C4 Protocol. Retrieved February 28, 2015, from http://www.hahnemanninstituut.nl/1/93/c4-protocol/ Read More