Creating Waves of Awareness
Experience
How many of us with several years of homoeopathic practice can boast of gaining real experience in Homoeopathy? Some of us have practised Homoeopathy for more than 30 and 40 years. How can we establish that we really gained experience?
Of course, some of the Homoeopaths with experience, have carried homoeopathy to new heights.
But unfortunately, some of us continued practising Homoeopathy for decades after decades, but with partial or superficial understanding and application of its principles. These Homoeopaths, may take some symptoms, or may even take pages of symptoms, but hardly ever analyse or evaluate them.
Often lacking in the power of observation, and missing the vital individualizing features of the case. Their prescriptions are based on some partial aspect of the case or on some unimportant common general symptoms, or particular symptoms, which may happen to be most troublesome.
They treat the symptoms only, and the patient as an individual, always remains outside their view and grasp. By and large, they learn very little from their successes and failures in the individual cases dealt by them. This sort of practice is blind and sterile, and has nothing to do with the experience.
As a matter of fact the term theory, practice, and experience are closely interlinked and are mutually complementary.
Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"
Practice, if it is to be lively and fruitful, must be scrupulously scientific that must be animated and guided by theory through the process of deduction. Such conscious and conscientious practice will gradually carry us to the deeper and deeper significance of the theory and widen the scope of the same.
Experience really means a synthesis of the above two: Theory and Practice. It will thus be the knowledge resulting from actual observation of facts and events. A wisdom derived from trials. If each case of our practice fails to add something to our knowledge, if it doesn't enrich or improve our grasp on theory and principles, we are far from gaining an experience, however long we may practice.
Of course, some of the Homoeopaths with experience, have carried homoeopathy to new heights.
But unfortunately, some of us continued practising Homoeopathy for decades after decades, but with partial or superficial understanding and application of its principles. These Homoeopaths, may take some symptoms, or may even take pages of symptoms, but hardly ever analyse or evaluate them.
Often lacking in the power of observation, and missing the vital individualizing features of the case. Their prescriptions are based on some partial aspect of the case or on some unimportant common general symptoms, or particular symptoms, which may happen to be most troublesome.
They treat the symptoms only, and the patient as an individual, always remains outside their view and grasp. By and large, they learn very little from their successes and failures in the individual cases dealt by them. This sort of practice is blind and sterile, and has nothing to do with the experience.
As a matter of fact the term theory, practice, and experience are closely interlinked and are mutually complementary.
Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"
Practice, if it is to be lively and fruitful, must be scrupulously scientific that must be animated and guided by theory through the process of deduction. Such conscious and conscientious practice will gradually carry us to the deeper and deeper significance of the theory and widen the scope of the same.
Experience really means a synthesis of the above two: Theory and Practice. It will thus be the knowledge resulting from actual observation of facts and events. A wisdom derived from trials. If each case of our practice fails to add something to our knowledge, if it doesn't enrich or improve our grasp on theory and principles, we are far from gaining an experience, however long we may practice.
-
Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on September 23, 2010 at 1:10am -
I fully agree with you.
Doing things wrongly for several years cant be considered as real experience!
-
Comment by DR. Sushil Bahl on September 24, 2010 at 10:04am -
Thank you Dr. Rafeeque.Your one line statement envelops the core issue.
-
Comment by Dr.(Mrs) Amina Meer on September 24, 2010 at 11:45am -
sir, i agree with you..it is like treating the patient in allopathic way using homoeopathic medicines..such experience of decades neither benefits the patient nor it enhances the knowledge of the physician..
-
Comment by DR. Sushil Bahl on September 24, 2010 at 10:31pm
-
Thank you, Dr. Amina Meer, for your clear cut thinking and understanding about the application of homoeopathy.
-
Comment by Suhas Kotbagi on September 27, 2010 at 11:59am -
I agree with everyone about the topic of discussion here...Now lets say that a homeopath in practice for many years have good understanding of Hahnemannian homeopathy and has treated many patients over the years adhering to basic tenets of homeopathy as espoused in Organon.....Now comes the question (remember aphorism 3rd for following question)
A patient walks in in this homeopaths office with his/her complete medical record file from previous doctors visits (other-allopaths/acupuncturist etc) and is now seeking homeopathic treatment, this patient tells the diagnosis upon arrival and asks the homeopath---"Do you have EXPERIENCE" in treating this condition?
What should Homeopath say YES or NO.....
I am posing this question here (may be a wrong place) so as to know how to tackle patients who expects a mere "Diagnostic Experience" as opposed to a "Experience of individualization" and "Constitutional treatment" experience?
I do not know if I was able to express myself with the question I am putting here, but in my own practice I had lot of patients who will ask me this, and even though I know I can treat patient homeopathically, how can I answer if I have experience in treating say for example "Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma" (just an example)...or say "Atopic/contact dermatitis" which is an allopathic diagnosis?
How about patients who come to a homeopath in last stages of diseases, been to super specialist experienced doctors and then come with that same attitude to homeopath seeking an Experienced allopathic doctor in that homeopath?
SK
-
Comment by Debby Bruck on September 27, 2010 at 2:15pm -
Dear Suhas ~ This question was addressed in today's BTR-WRTO radio show. Hahnemann himself says, "If, however, it is deemed necessary sometimes to make use of names of diseases, in order, when talking about a patient to ordinary persons, to render ourselves intelligible in few words, we ought only to employ them as collective names, and tell them, E. G., the patient has A KIND of St. Vitus's dance, A KIND of dropsy, A KIND of typhus, A KIND of ague; but (in order to do away once for all with the mistaken notions these names give rise to) we should never say he has THE St. Vitus's dance, THE typhus, THE dropsy, THE ague, as there are certainly no diseases of these and similar names of fixed unvarying character. " Footnote to aphorism §81
You can explain that you treat the 'whole' patient and the symptoms presented, not a named disease, which was labeled for convenience in communication. You treat a person uniquely with an individualized medical approach.
-
Comment by Suhas Kotbagi on September 27, 2010 at 2:39pm
-
Thank you Debby for reminding me of Aphorism 81....it would have been a coincidence if I were to hear today' show, but as my laptop is giving me trouble I could not plug in...
The word "Kind of" is important, but in today's Allopathically conditioned/refurbished brains using such words leads to patient thinking that the doctor doesn't know what he is talking about, add to that information available on google and wikipedia about health.
SK
-
Comment by DR. Sushil Bahl on September 27, 2010 at 10:46pm
-
The pathological diagnosis of the disease is essential for ascertaining the prognosis of the case and help greatly, though indirectly, in the rational management and even in actual medicinal treatment of the case( potency, dose etc). More over these morbid changes do not at all fall outside the purview of what is to be cured in the case of the disease.
Those Homoeopaths who assert that pathological diagnosis is not necessary in Homoeopathy, do not at all appreciate the teachings of Hahnemann.
But unlike Allopathy, these names of the diseases are of no or little help in selection of our remedy for the particular patient.
Thus we are always supposed to make to types of diagnosis:
1.Nosological diagnosis
2.The Therapeutic Diagnosis
Comment
© 2013 Created by Debby Bruck.
You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!
Join Homeopathy World Community