Definitions of Terms: Disease, Drug, Cure

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Lawrence on May 15, 2010 at 11:59am

Osteopaths view disease as a process and tend not to use the term cure. The law of cure is very helpful, however in understanding the process. Health is seen as a state of homeodynamic balance. There is no concept of health in conventional medicine.
I tend not to use the term drug in describing remedies because of the confusion it creates in the minds of patients.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Stevenson on May 15, 2010 at 5:25pm

Like you, I avoid the term drug in homeopathic prescribing. However, I also find the term "remedy" to be too "small". It doesn't really credit the power in them.

Health = Homeostasis? Is that a good definition?

I do think that cure should be defined. Do you have any suggestions? Do you think it should not be defined?

Disease is a lack of homeostatis?

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Lawrence on May 16, 2010 at 1:38am

I would rather use the term homeodynamic state rather that homeostasis, because stasis = static. The organism lives in a constanly changing external and internal environment, therefore it's state is constanly adapting. In the healthy organism this constant adaptaion is invariably successful.

I aim with my patients to get them to a point where they can cope with the chemical physical and emotional challenges that face them in thier life. That is the nearest I feel they get to being 'cured'. I suppose you could use the term to describe the disappearance of a condition, but again I am uncomfortable because that presupposes that the condition exists as an isolated entity.

The language used in classical homeopathy reflects the understanding and assumptions of Hahnemann's time and I think it should change to reflect our present understanding, otherwise it prevents communication with other disciplines.

Useful reading is David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate order' in which he proposes a change in our language to reflect the dynamic reality of life.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Stevenson on May 18, 2010 at 6:04am

I can't agree. Stasis means a balance among forces. Though it sounds similar to static, it doesn't have the same meaning. So, I'd prefer to stay with that term, rather than make a change that, at this point, I can see no reason to make. Homeostasis implies that the body (and mind) are successful in managing the constant changes.

I think that your goal is the same as any reasonable homeopathist's, though I do understand your concern with the term cure. However, cure can never be a static thing, so I don't have the same problem with the terminology.

I do agree that much of the language used in homeopathy reflects terminology and usage prevalent in Hahnemann's time, and would very much like to see that updated - especially in the repertories, which I find can be confusing and probably lead to errors in their use.

Unfortunately, though, we can't just decide that certain terminology and use of language should be instituted. Language is a fluid system, changing as people, usually unconsciously, change it en masse.

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Lawrence on July 4, 2010 at 4:29pm

I am changing my position. I come to this discussion not as a practitioner of classical homeopathy but as an osteopath who practices homeopathic mesotherapy. My background is grounded in the current scientific paradigm. My experience as a patient of classical homeopathy is that it works, but not in a way that is readily understandable in the world view I was brought up in.
I see classical homeopathy not as an alternative medicine or as a complementary medicine but as a parallel medicine. One whose paradigm is quite different to conventional medicine, contradictory or paradoxical to a degree but is as valid. It is after all based on systematic observation which to me is scientific.
The terms used by classical homeopaths therefore | am content to leave be. In the same way terms in osteopathy such as 'lesion' have a meaning quite distinct from the term in conventional medicine.
I suggest that these terms be clearly defined and maybe a common language developed to faciliate understanding.
I have looked up definitions of stasis by the way and it seems to indicate 'lack of movement' therefore I stick to my view that homeodynamic is a better term.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Stevenson on July 4, 2010 at 6:02pm

In terms of homeopathy, I believe that homeostasis is the goal. The implication is not static or unmoving, but a state of balance. The implication is that health exists when the body (including the mind) is in balance. The point, or fulcrum, of balance may change - but that's a part of homeostasis. That, at least, was the basis of my homeopathic training.

One good definition of homeostasis is, I think, "the maintenance of metabolic equilibrium within an animal by a tendency to compensate for disrupting changes". So, it's an organism's ability to maintain equilibrium in the face of constantly changing conditions.

I don't think that homeopathy and mesotherapy can really be put together. You may use homeopathic remedies in mesotherapy, but that doesn't make mesotherapy homeopathic.

I agree completely that homeopathy is based on observation. It seems to me that observation is the basis of science and that several methods can be used to aid observation.

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Lawrence on July 5, 2010 at 2:05am

I am exploring the concept of health as Process, an ongoing never-ending-until death by the body, to be in harmony with the external and internal environment. While I think this idea challenges the term cure (Hahnemann's concepts are related to the understanding of his time-which of course do not necessarily negate the concepts but may change the expression of them), it challenges the fact that 'scientific' medicine has no concept of health, other than the absence of disease (their own definition).
Science has no concept of vital force, although it may be observed they have no way of measuring it therefore from the logical positivist frame it does not exist.
I would think all forms of traditional medicine have a concept of vital force eg. chi and prana and ironically science has the keys to an understanding of it within it's own paradigm- quantum mechanics. The discovery of photon emmissions as a characteristic of life points us in this direction.
So I think there is a place for a dialogue between all forms of healing to create a set of common terms whilst respecting the tradition and coherence of each.