Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 22 February 2007

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|November 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.

It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. (discuss)

Classical homeopathy is the modern term for homeopathy which follows the canonical (i.e. classical) traditions of remedy prescription and holistic case taking, as first laid down by Samuel Hahnemann in the Organon of the Medicine and subsequently confirmed and developed by many classical homeopaths.

Originators of classical homeopathy

Classical homeopathy was confirmed and developed by so-called "classical homeopaths" such as Clemens Maria Franz von Bönninghausen, Jahr, Eugène Nash, Allen, Constantine Hering, Carrol Dunham, Richard Hughes, James Tyler Kent, John Henry Clarke, William Boericke, Cyrus M. Boger, Herbert Roberts and others.

Many of these physicians were originally allopathic practitioners who turned to homeopathy and are now regarded as classical homeopaths. Notably, however, John Henry Clarke, Richard Hughes and Von Bönninghausen deviated from Hahnemannian dogma. Their approaches differed in several ways from Hahnemann: Bönninghausen used 200c or higher for all cases; Clarke developed many new nosodes and mixed remedies like gunpowder; and Hughes' disregarded miasms completely, used only 3x and 6x potencies, and also used solely pathological symptoms to determine a remedy. These homeopaths were considered rebels against the conformists of the classical Hahnemannian approach in their time.

Definition and modern deviations of Classical Homeopathy

Classical homeopathy begins with the practice of Hahnemann, and is still today practiced in the same style all around the world. Among the most prominent classical homeopaths nowadays are Georgos Vithoulkas and Rajan Sankaran.

However, this term 'classical' is hard to define really precisely, thus is ambiguous and has generated much dissent, division and discussion within homeopathy. Mostly classical homeopathy aspires to be Hahnemannian, but some consider it a 'pure homeopathy' devoid of allegedly "mongrel" practices like using mixed remedies or very low potencies, dream provings, signatures, dowsing, psychic methods, or rote-prescribing for named diseases. Therefore, the term 'classical homeopathy' has emerged in an attempt by some to define the so-called "purest and highest form of homeopathy" from the "lesser forms" that would not meet the accepted standards of Hahnemann's Organon. Even Hahnemann's methods evolved all the time; they were never static, and thus deciding which particular phase of his practice represents the 'true' Hahnemann proves difficult.

For example Vithoulkas "has criticised those provings that he felt were unscientific and too subjective.". Vithoulkas also says,

While the above statements give a clear exposition of the Classical position, some modern homeopaths prefer to adopt a broadly eclectic approach, accepting old and new doctrines and methods seemingly with equal ease. This so-called classical homeopathy has in its turn spawned its detractors, comprising a rebellious movement of anti-classical homeopathy as exemplified by the Colleges of Practical Homeopathy founded by Robert Davidson in the UK and Iceland in the 1980s and 1990s. These colleges explore and teach all ideas and methods within homeopathy and are opposed to what they see as the dogmatic strictures of so-called classical or Hahnemannian homeopathy.

As Robert Davidson puts it:

" Much is spoken and written in homeopathy about how to interpret what Hahnemann wrote. If we look at what he consistently demonstrated throughout his life, in his action, it becomes very simple: 1) Have no...limiting ideas; 2) Do what works best, right now; 3) Continue looking for what works better."

Genesis of Homeopathy

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article. (Discuss)

Dr. Hahnemann was a noted translator and polyglot with a good command over several European languages. While translating a chapter on cinchona in Cullen's Materia Medica, he disagreed with Cullen that this bark cures malaria fever because of its bitter action on the stomach. Hahnemann then set about to discover directly for himself the action of Cinchona by taking a small quantity of the bark over several days. Within a day or so Hahnemann experienced malaria-like symptoms. Each time he increased the dose, the rigours increased; as he relaxed the dose, so the symptoms subsided. In this way, Hahnemann concluded that Cinchona is the sole and specific cause of the malaria-like syndrome and its specific curative property in sickness resides in its ability to create in a healthy person malaria-like syndromes: "An intermittent fever must be very similar to that which china can cause in the healthy, if that medicine is to be the suitable."

The object of these experiments was to try to rescue medicine from the uncertanties of suppositions, fancies and guesswork with which it had been burdened for centuries and to place the medical art upon a more rational footing. In the first proving, Hahnemann had effectively set out to invalidate "traditional opinions, in guesses prompted by false lights in theoretical maxims and chance ideas... impartial observation, clear experience, and pure experiment, in a pure science of experience such as medicine from its nature must only be.... by testing its dynamical powers on the healthy human being the symptoms of disease produced by Cinchona bark in healthy observers"

From this experience, he generalized that all curative medicines have the power to produce the disease syndromes in a healthy person for which they are therapeutically applicable. And these substances have the power to cure the syndromes when similar symptoms manifest in a sick person. This impulse to generalize was not a serious weak point in his reasoning, as some might imagine. Rather, in fact, he could justify this premise to himself, because it flowed from his prediction that only single drugs should be used in medicine: "…we must only give one single simple substance at a time." "Then let us...agree to give but one single, simple remedy at a time, for every single disease..."

It also flowed from his anticipation that such drugs have this innate power to make sick/heal (based on his previous study of ancient cures). For example, "it was during the quiet, scholarly days, in the secluded library at Hermannstadt , that he acquired that extensive and diverse knowledge of ancient literature, and of occult sciences, of which he afterwards proved himself the master, and with which he astonished the scientific world." Hahnemann "in marginal notes and comments he criticized and tore to pieces the works he translated…with an iron consistency, Hahnemann revealed the gaps and fallacies in medical treatment, and his ever-increasing knowledge of medicines stood him in good stead."

It flowed from his studies of poisons: that "the symptoms of Mercury poisoning were very like those of secondary syphilis. That was noticed by John Hunter long before Hahnemann." Hahnemann felt that "medicines become poisons simply by imperfect use; in themselves no medicines are poisonous." "He zealously occupied himself...with the collection of cases of poisoning."

It flowed from the twin concepts of similars and provings: because "to cure diseases medicines must be used which possess the power of exciting similar diseases, at once perceived that the whole edifice of the old Materia Medica must be rebuilt from the very foundation, as that Materia Medica furnished nothing positive regarding the pathogenetic actions of drugs."

And it also flowed from other provings that followed in quick succession after that of Cinchona. The specific point only became elevated for him into a general principle through experiment and repeated evidence. For example, by 1796 he had elevated this generalization into a clear principle based upon twenty or so empirical studies. 27 of his first drug provings were published in 1805 in the Fragmenta de viribus.

“...Hahnemann’s “Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis.” was published in Latin. This two-volume work gives us, for the first time, an insight into the remarkable, and so far unknown, methods of investigation, which he employed. It supplies reports on the tests of twenty seven medicines the results of years of experiment on himself and his family.”

Several times he repeated the experiments with the Cinchona. He found that the proving contained much more detail than a simple fever. He started to write down feelings, symptoms, sensations, aggravations, ameliorations, whatever he felt, daily in a diary. When the effects of the crude drug faded, he categorised the symptoms from most to lesser importance. He began with symptoms of mind, which was unique at that time, because medicines were mostly understood through physiological characteristics. This holistic method he initiated, deriving from the details of a proving, became the template not only for all future provings but also for the drug pictures as compiled in the Materia Medica as well as how the symptom data was to be compiled in Repertories. The specific arrangement of such information derives from the first provings and is not found in any other medical system.

However, there is a potential flaw in the reasoning and methodology Hahnemann adopted for the first provings. For example, the way he compiled the first provings, placing together into one drug picture the truly authentic data from first-hand empirical sources with material of dubious worth from records of ancient medical sources, such as accounts of their alleged therapeutic properties and from the accounts of poisonings. By adopting this approach he opens himself up to criticism because it falls some way short of the oft-repeated claim that homeopathic drug pictures contain genuinely empirical data (pure symptoms) derived solely from the provings. In fact, as it is clear, this is not the case. To what extent this method is valid requires greater scrutiny and reflection. It is hard to avoid the distinct impression that in the first batch of provings he 'jumped the gun' by hastily incorporating into the same drug picture non-proving data alongside the real thing.

Classical homeopathy should be considered a pseudoscience. According to author Stephen S. Carey, there are a few characteristics of a pseudoscience. Homeopathy has many of these characteristics that come from claims that involve fallacious scientific reasoning. The minimal dose is an example that fits a pseudoscience perfectly. Homeopathy claims that treatments are most therapeutic when the remedy is taken in extremely dilute form, up to 1X10^30 parts water, this goes against the laws understood by physics and chemistry. Another example of why homeopathy should be considered a pseudoscience is because it is not self-correcting. Most supporters reference the inital test performed in the 1780s. Homeopathy has provided little in how the remedy works, or explanatory theory of homeopathy. When evidence has come up to show that homeopathy has the same results as a placebo, its followers tend to be very skeptical and state that testing homeopathy will destroy the therapeutic effect. This is another reason why Homeopathy should be considered a pseudoscience.

Organon of the Rational Art of Healing

The Organon of the Healing Art (also called "Organon of the Rational Art of Healing") is the first classical book of homeopathy in which the art of healing was described. The book is written in Aphorisms. The theoretical and practical part appear together. Six editions of the Organon of Medicine have been published.

“...the “Organon of the Art of Healing” is presented in sections after the manner of a legal code. ...sections manifest the notable and intimidating terseness of legal paragraphs, which, despite their unequivocal and final character, can scarcely be understood without prolific commentaries. Many authoritative minds have expounded them, and have read into them profound significance or nonsense, according to their own estimate.”

Another classical work of Hahnemann is Chronic Diseases and its Cure. The book covers the theory of chronic diseases and materia medica of medicines, which was experienced and observed by the Hahnemann while treating the chronic disease conditions.

Another Classical work is Materia Medica Pura in which the details of the drugs, their preparation and their proving is given in details.

Homoeopathy as a science has a philosophy of its own with some cardinal principles. These are called the fundamental principles as every science have its own, according to their philosophy or phenomenon.

Homeopathic principles

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled Principles of Classical homeopathy. (Discuss)

Hahanemann laid down some principles (not conventions ), which he described in his classical work The Organon:

• Similia similibus curentur (let like cure like)
• The Single Remedy
• The Minimal Dose
• The Potentized Remedy or the Doctrine of Drug Dynamization
• Theory of the Vital Force
• Theory of Chronic Diseases
• Miasms
• Doctrine of Drug Proving

which make together the essence of Classical Homoeopathy.

Law of Similars: 'Similia similibus curentur'

A weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished in the living organism by a stronger one, if the latter (whilst differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestations. § 26 Organon

The law of similarity is a major principle of Homoeopathy. It is the key of homoeopathic science and its base also. Similia simlibus curantur as homeopathic moto is a Latin phrase and its literal meaning is 'Likes cure likes'. The word "homeopathy" is thus related to the principle, its Greek origin means 'similar sufferings'. It can be defined that Homoeopathy is a therapeutic method of the similarity of the symptoms.

The law of similarity has ancient origins. In Ayurveda, Charak first recognised the Law of Similars by saing expressing the rule VISHASHYA VISHMAUSHADHAM, which means 'poison can be cured by the poison'. It is also claimed that Hippocrates sensed the law and he applied the law in some recorded cases. From time to time the medical practitioners felt that theory of the Law of Similars is correct, but actually they didn't know how exactly to implement it.

It is for the first time in the history of medicine that Hahnemann did a practical implementation of the Law of Similars by experimenting and by his keen observation with the inductive method of reasoning he convinced physicians into it.

Law of simplex - the single remedy

Hahnemann on the single remedy: In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time. This is one aspect of the Hahnemann approach which have several dimensions to understand the doctrine.

In fact the Homoeopathic remedies are proved in single and the materia medica is built up with the collection of symptoms observed by the provers. These symptoms are collected and segregated according to their characteristics. The effects of the medicine is tested either in planned provings or they have got collected from the accidental provings.

Another aspect is that only a single remedy is required, which is most similar matching the symptoms of the sick person.

The other problem is, the physician will not understand which medicine is curing if more than the single remedy is used, this might deviate from the use of just one remedy.

The possibility of synergistic and/or antagonic actions cannot be ruled out, if more than one medicine is used. The effect will be the sum total of the effects of the separate drugs. The diluted ingredients of the drug may even result in interaction and could cause the adverse effects in the body.

The concept of Vital force, which is governing the human body comprehensively, needs a single identity. Therefore the medicine should be one to correct the disturbances and dishormony of the body by a single medicine at a time.

Law of Minimum: The Minimal Dose

Hahnemann laid a principle in aphorism 275, the suitableness of a medicine for any given case does not depend on its accurate Homoeopathic selection alone, but likewise on the proper size or rather smallness of dose. Under this direction the patient is given medicine in a very minute dose. That means although the dose is smallest in quantity, but it produces least possible excitation of the Vital force to effect the necessary changes. The concept of minimal dose is conjoined with the drug dynamisation process or say potentization. The Law of Minimum has many advatages.

1. The minimal dose does not damage any vital organ of body, so there is no risk of drug affects or drug addiction.
2. The concept of the minimum dose can be ascertained by the law of Arndt-Shultz with the established facts that small dose stimulate, medium dose paralyze and the large doses kills. It can be said that action of one substance will not be same if they are administered in small and large quantity on living matters.
3. To avoid undesired aggravation of any kind.
4. The dynamic action of a drug produces uncommon, peculiar, strange, rare and other distinguished symptoms when used in the minimum quantity, when proving
5. the remedies fine and finest quality of action for cure purposes, is possible in the minimal doses.
6. To maintain the similarity of the sequence of the drug and the disease, minimal dose is necessary
7. According to Fincke the law of quantity is thus "The quality of the action of Homoeopathic remedy is determined by its quantity in inver ratio."
8. Law of least action is formulated by the French mathematician Maupertius: "the quantity of action necessary to affect any changes in nature is the least possible. The decisive amount is always a minimum, an infinitesimal".

It was long believed that Hahanemann always used single medicine at a time as a rule, which is followed by the subsequent followers of the Homoeopathy -- but recently documents have come to light that suggested he did otherwise. However, in Classical Homoeopathy, largely due to the influence of Kent, it is not common practice to mix remedies at the same time.

Efficacy of homeopathical medicines having regard to the minimal dose administered in low potencies have not gained much ground with the scientific world. Neither the homeopaths nor their adversaries had any idea how these medicines worked on the human body. But they do work it was commonly believed by homeopaths and their patients. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, effets of particles at the subatomic levels have been brought within the scope of examination. Modern psychiatary in the hands of alopaths is directing its drug-research on the basis of boilogical evidence of elecricity present in the human body in mini-micro volts. If the whole matter could be examined on the altar of science by consenting alopaths, physicists and homeopaths, mankind could take full advantage of the great science struggling to get a permanent foothold in the arena of medical sciences.

See also: The Minimum Dose

The Potentized Remedy or Doctrine of Drug Dynamization (Homoeopathic Pharmacy)

Theory of Vital Force

Among the medical science, Homoeopathy believes that it is the Vital Force which is responsible for the different manifestations of life. Hahnemann writes in aphorism-10, about the Vital force,"The material organism without the vital force is capable no sensation, no function, no self preservation ; it derives all sensations, and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being which animates the material organism in health and in disease,"

The Vital force in the healthy condition, maintains the normal functions and sensations of the organism. When the vital force is not dynamically deranged by the morbific dynamic influences, it is normal in this stage. When the vital force is influenced by the morbific dynamic agents, it deranges and causes abnormal sensations and functions, which are manifested outwardly through the material body as abnormal sign and symptoms, which constitute the disease syndromes.

The cure is possible when the vital force aided itself to rise the recovery. When vital force is weak, debilitated, exhausted and not provoked itself, the recovery of normal health is difficult.

Theory of Chronic Diseases

While Hahnemann was treating his patients, he observed that some of the patients returned back to their complaints and symptoms after relief, in some interval. This recurrence of symptoms lead him to think over the problem. The failure gave him thought, why it happens and how it happens ? He tried to understand the reality behind this phenomenon. After 12 years of the rigorous experimentation and observation, he came up to a conclusion that there is something present in the human body, by which the occurrence of the symptoms repeats after cure. He reached up to the conclusion that chronic diseases are caused by the chronic miasms and these miasms are Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. Dr. Hahnemann concluded after 12 years of long and rigorous experimentation that the real cause of the recurrence of the disease sympatomatology or symptoms or syndromes is due to Psora. Psora is a fundamental cause of the disease, which forms itself in innumerable forms of disease syndromes. Psora is the mother of all dideases and at least seven-eight of all the chronic maladies are cropped up from it. The remaining eight sprung up from the other causative factors say miasms i.e. Syphilis and Sycosis.

He observed that cure from these miasms are possible, when selected potentised drug is used, which are known as Anti-psoric, antisycotic, antisyphilitic. Only miasmatic treatment can prevent the relapse of the symptoms. The theory of the miasmatic treatment is included in the fourth edition of The Organon of the Healing Art in year 1829. But Hahnemann published this innovation in Homeopathic science in a separate book titled "Chronic diseases, their nature and Homoeopathic treatment" in year 1828.

Miasms

By 1816, Hahnemann was concerned at the failure of his homeopathic remedies to produce lasting cures for chronic diseases. He found that "...the non-venereal chronic diseases, after being time and again removed homoeopathically … always returned in a more or less varied form and with new symptoms." To explain this, Hahnemann introduced the miasmatic theory, that three fundamental "miasms" are the underlying root causes of all the chronic diseases of mankind: Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis, suppressed gonorrhoea.

This miasm theory was first published in 1828. Though Hahnemann first suspected miasms in 1816, he took 12 years before he published his views. It is possible that the study of Freemasonry under the guidance of his Patron, the Grand Duke Ferdinand of Anhalt-Coethen influenced his thinking. He adopted a reclusive lifestyle while residing in Koethen and his new inclination towards metaphysical pursuits may explain his sudden adoption of Olfaction , which he continued to use until his death in Paris in 1843. Olfaction might derive from Arabian medicine and the art of Perfumery.

The miasm of Psora, he concluded, underpinned most of the chronic diseases known to medicine. Miasma, from the Greek for 'stain', was an old medical concept, used for "pestiferous exhalations". The sense of this is indicated by Hahnemann's Note 2 to §11 of the Organon: "...a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, … in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property..."

According to Hahnemann, miasmatic infection causes local symptoms, usually in the skin. If these are suppressed by external medication, the hidden sickness cause goes deeper, and manifests itself later as organ pathologies. In §80 of the Organon he asserted Psora to be the cause of such diseases as epilepsy, cyphosis, cancer, jaundice, deafness, and cataract.

Even in his own time, many followers of Hahnemann, including Hering, made almost no reference to Hahnemann’s concept of chronic diseases. Perhaps they lacked Hahnemann's deep knowledge of cases from which the theory was distilled? Today, some homeopathic practitioners find Hahnemann’s theory difficult to reconcile with current knowledge of immunology, genetic, microbiology and pathology, as it seems to ignore the importance of genetic, congenital, metabolic, nutritional, and degenerative factors in sickness; the theory also fails to differentiate the multitude of different infectious diseases. However, most insist that the key elements of his theory are valid. For instance, most of them believe that the fundamental cause of disease is internal and constitutional (i.e. the susceptibility to becoming ill), and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms, especially skin eruptions and discharges. They also accept Hahnemann's concept of latent Psora, the early signs of an organism’s imbalance, which indicate that treatment is needed to prevent the development of more advanced disease.

However, we should not regard the miasm theory as the 'be all and end all' of homeopathy. For example, these criticisms ignore the fact that Hahnemann strongly advocated good hygiene, fresh air, regular exercise, good nutrition as precursors of good health ; he was also a pioneer in 1792-3 of humane treatment of the insane a year before William Tuke and Philippe Pinel, and he published tracts in which he described the cause of Cholera as "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures" Asiatic Cholera, 1831. Hahnemann's acceptance of this emerging idea of infectious disease before its final proof by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur indicates some of his medical views incorporated ideas that were at the cutting-edge of contemporary science. These 17th-century epidemiological theories built on the ideas of Girolamo Fracastoro in the 16th century and the discovery of microbes by Anton van Leeuwenhoek one hundred years previously.

Theory of Drug Proving

In Homoeopathic treatment only those medicines are used / prescribed which have properly proved or tested according to the rules laid down by Dr Hahnemann. The process is known "Drug Proving". Actually Hahneann wants to know the potentized drugs actions in human body.

Drug proving is a systematic process and arrangement to procure the disease producing power of any substance, say medicine in human say healthy human, both sexes, any and all age, body built, temperaments, constitution, etc.

The recording of the drug proving must be reliable and thats why reliable and genuine person should be selected for the drug proving. Hahnemann writes directions for conducting the drug proving in the Organon of Medicine in aphorisms 120 -145 to procure the curative properties of medicine substances for curing thousands of thousands disease conditions.

The directives are that drug should be proved on the human being because animals can not give the mental and subjective symptoms effects of some drugs on animal and on human being will be different.

Requisite qualification of homoeopathic practitioner

Since the time of Dr. Hahnemann, allopathic practitioners (now Modern Western Medicine practitioners) can practice Homoeopathy as a speciality. Some principles have been framed by Dr. Hahnemann, which are essential and necessary to be followed by the homoeopathic practitioners, who want to practice classical homoeopathy. These requisite qualifications and conditions are implemented on the physician for providing the concept of "Ideal Cure" for which Dr. Hahnemann have written in the 1st § of the Organon of the medicine. The speciality of the Homoeopathic doctor must be according to the following conditions.

• Have the ability to heal rapid, gentle and permanent
• Knowledge of the medicinal power and essentials
• Knowledge of the application of the drug/remedy related to disease/symptoms
• Knowledge of the selection or choice of remedy/medicine
• Knowledge of the exact mode /procedure of drug/remedy preparation
• Knowledge of the repetition of the doses at a time and interval
• knowledge of the obstacle / hindrance to cure and their removals
• Knowledge of the things which deranges health, caused disease and how to remove them
• Physician should have sense of "No prejudice" according to § 6 and 83
• Physician should have Sound senses according to § 83
• Physician should have especial circumspection according to § 98
• Physician should have tact and knowledge to handle the case
• Physician should have good understanding of the human nature and Psychology
• Should have patience and good conceiving and perceiving qualities.

Case-taking

Hahnemann developed a unique method of Case-taking and recording of the symptoms of the sick person not in use at that time. The specific type of questioning in order to aid the selection of the proper remedy for a proper case, and to translate the remedy proving into the practice of healing. Hahnemann laid down certain principles for the selection of the remedy. In Aphorism 5th, Hahnemann gives instructions for the exciting causes and fundamental causes. In §71 and further he instructs how to take the case and achieve proper selection of a medicine. This requires the ability and skill of the physician and reflects both their conception of homeopathy and perception of the patient. Hahnemann said in §71 "The operation of curing is comprised in three points, and among it the first point is case-taking or case-recording.

"A case well taken is half cured," is the opinion of Hahnemann. A good Homoeopathic prescription depends upon the information collected by the physician from the patient. The Homoeopath must know his patient spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically and sociologically. A physician must devote his time to collect the maximum information about the patient. This must comprise an accurate and neutral (unbiased) view of the patient totality: "If you want to see the true picture of a person's soul that person has to undress in front of you....the individual has to stay naked in front of the practicioner in order that he will see the whole picture."

§ 83-104 of the Organon of the medicine deals with the instructions of Hahnemann regarding Case-taking. The case should have records in such a way that it should contain all the essentials individualising characteristics, which leads clearly matching with the recorded symptoms of the proved medicine. The recording of the symptoms is an art, because a physician collects the symptoms in view of finding a suitable remedy for the sick. Therefore the concentration of the physician should be within the sphere of the selection of medicine and the query should be done around this sphere.

The object of the case taking is to select the true symptoms of the patient a clear picture of the patient illness comes out to fulfill the object of diagnosis of disease, although this is necessary and essential because a physician must know, what he is treating ? This is only for diagnosis level. But the selection of medicine is finally depending upon the symptoms observed.

General directions

• Whatever the patient is narrated the history of sufferings, the physician should attentively listen to all.

• The physician should also collect the maximum information regarding the patient, from his natives, relatives, family members, attendants about his complaints, behaviour, any secrets, any abnormality, which is observed by them.

• The observation of physician is very important. A keen observer observes any thing altered, peculiar, unusual, strange, uncommon in patinet by seeing, hearing, touching and use of other senses.

• The physician should write down whatever the he observes, hears, experiences etc. by his senses and by those of the attendants.

• The physician should advise the patient to speak slowly about his complaints. The physician should write down case history in the words of patient and style of expressions. The recorded symptomatology and case history will be for the future references, because it is impossible for any physician to keep in memory all the patient complaints.

Homoeopathy in surgical disease conditions

There are so many disease conditions where Homoeopathic treatment can be useful to the patient. Some of the conditions are where surgical treatment is essential but in these conditions Homoeopathy can help a lot to avoid the surgery:

• Renal stones, Hydronephrosis, Kidney disorders, Nephropathy
• Boils and abscess
• Gall bladder inflammatory conditions, Cholecystitis, Cholelethiasis, Sludge in gallbladder, swelling of gall bladder, stone in gall bladder below 4 mm/5mm size
• piles, heamorrhoids,
• some nature of cyst and glands
• Hard glands, inflammation of mammery glands
• Tonsillitis, uvalitis, throat and vocal cord problems
• Fractures simple type, cracking bones
• Enlarged Prostate, Prostate hypertrophy
• some types of cancer or cancerous growth in mouth, cheeks, skin, uterus and othet organs
• blockage of arteries/veins, blood clotting in arteries
• any other disease conditions which requires surgery except immediate surgical intervention

Selection of medicine: appropriate remedy

The criteria for the selection of the appropriate remedy is instructed by Hahnemann in Organon of the Medicine in the practical part from aphorism 71- 142. The Organon of Medicine is very serious writings of Hahnemann, which is logically written and should be understand the written material seriously by the reader or followers of the Homoeopathy. This is not an ordinarily written book. It has logic on concrete backgrounds, which have been gained after long continuous experimentation and thus the contents are based on the practical approach.

Hahnemann's work concerning classical homeopathy

Samuel Hahnemann has written several articles before his work on homeopathy. Originally, Hahnemann was Allopathic physician practicing in Allopathy. As a chemist, he also had knowledge of foreign languages and could speak Latin, English etc. He was in Government Service of the Duke.

What follows is a list of his main articles, books, and other publications. Titles are listed by year(s) of publication, in chronological order:

1810 - Organon of the Rational Art of Healing / first edition

1811 to 1821 - Materia Medica Pura

1813 - Spirit of the New Medical Doctrine

1816 - On veneral diseases and its ordinary Improper treatment

1816 - On the treatment of Burns

1828 to 1838 - Chronic Diseases

1830 to 1831 - Four articles on Cholera

1819 - Organon of medicine 2nd edition

1824 - Organon of medicine 3rd edition

1829 - Organon of medicine 4th edition

1833 - Organon of medicine 5th edition

1921 - Organon of medicine 6th edition

History of Repertory

The history of the origin of Homoeopathic Repertory begins from Hahnemann himself. Hahnemann prepared an index of remedy symptoms for his own uses, because it was very difficult for him to remember the big number of the recorded symptoms of many medicines, when in need.

After some time, when many medicines were symptomatically recorded, some of these medicines were proved several times to make foolproof testing, thus the huge number of recorded symptoms causes inconvenience. It was impossible to memorise such huge symptoms for any one. So Hahnemann started to make index of the important symptoms according to his own needs. Today, these Hahnemannian indexing is preserved safely in the Heal's Museum, Robert Bosch Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany.

Later Dr. C. Von Boenninghausen modified the Hahnemann's idea of the arrangement of the indexing medicine. In year 1832 Dr. Boenninghausen prepared a repertory titled "Repertory of the Antipsoric Medicines". The preface of this repertory is written by the Hahnemann himself. Again in year 1835 Dr. Boenninghausen has written another repertory under title " Repertory of the medicine which are not Antipsoric". Again in year 1846, Dr. Boennighausen prepared a full fledge repertory under the title "Therapeutic Mannual for Homoeopathic Physician, for use at the sick bed and in the study of Materia Medica Pura". This was the base of the origin of repertory. The Boenninghausen's style of repertory composing is copied by the subsequent followers of Homoeopathy and some of them modified the repertory in their own way. Today the Boenninghausen work is available under the title Boenninghausen's Therapeutic pocket book with some changes.

The methods of the French School of homeopathy, such as nosode homeopathic prescription and cocktail remedies of Boiron, are non-classical.

Notes

1. Hahnemann, Samuel
2. Define Classical Homeopathy
3. What is homeopathy?
4. Hahnemannian homeopathy
5. Mixture of remedies
6. Signature
7. Provings
8. Dynamic Provings Vol 1, Jeremy Sherr, RSHom
9. Homeopathic dose
10. "Face to face with Prof. George Vithoulkas" Interview by Dr. Sanjay Modi, Dr. Nimish Mehta, Dr. Kamlesh Mehta Mumbai, India
11. Dogmatism in Homeopathy
12. http://www.college-of-practical-homeopathy.com/
13. 21stcentury Homeopathy
14. Hahnemann Materia Medica Pura (1810) China
15. Materia Medica Pura, Cinchona
16. Hahnemann, The Medicine of Experience, 1805, p.469 inHahnemann's Lesser Writings, 1851, Edited by R E Dudgeon, London, Jain reprint
17. Samuel Hahnemann, Are the Obstacles to Certainty and Simplicity in Practical Medicine Insurmountable? 1797, in Lesser Writings, 320
18. Thomas L Bradford, Life & Letters of Hahnemann, 1895, p.28
19. Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann, the Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, New York: 1945, p.59
20. Charles E Wheeler, Reflections & Recollections, Brit. Homeo. Jnl, 33, 1944, 170-171
21. Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Works, 2 volumes, 1922, India: Jain, vol. 1, p.75
22. Wilhelm Ameke, History of Homoeopathy: Its Origins, its Conflicts, with a note on University Medicine, (translated by A. Drysdale, edited by R E Dudgeon), London: E Gould & Sons, 1885, p.101
23. Robert E Dudgeon, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London, 1853, Jain reprint, India, p.176
24. Essay on a New Principle
25. Gumpert, op cit, p.122
26. Carey, Stephen S. A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method. Third Ed. Canada, 2004.
27. Liz Hall. Occupational Health. Sutton: Oct 2005. pg. 10,2pgs.
28. Lionel R Milgrom. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. London: Sep 2006. Vol.126, Iss. 5; pg.211, 8pgs.
29. Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, L B Fischer Publ Corp, New York, 1945: English translation of: Hahnemann, die Abenteurlichen Schicksale einea Arztlichen Rebellen und seiner Lehre, der Homeopathie“, S.Fischer, Berlin, 1934; translated from the German by Claud W Sykes, p.133
30. Homeopathy: Conventions vs. principles
31. Organon of medicine, § 272
32. Chronic disease
33. Miasm
34. The Chronic Diseases, their Nature and Homoeopathic Treatment, Dresden and Leipsic, Arnold. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1828; vol. 4, 1830
35. Website of Homéopathe International
36. Website of The Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians
37. Manouchehr Saadat Noury "First Iranians who introduced perfumery" Persian Journal May 9, 2005
38. Website of The Canadian Academy of Homeopathy
39. Conditions under which the correct homeopathic remedy is found

Bibliography

1. Von Boenninghausen, C, 1908. Lesser Writings, Delhi: B. Jain Publishers (2002, 1 Aug)
2. Bradford, T.L, 1895. Life and Letters of Hahnemann, New Delhi: B. Jain (2004)
3. Das, A.K, A treatise on Organon of Medicine, Calcutta: NIH
4. Haehl, R., 1922. Hahnemann Biography: His Life and Works, 2 volumes
5. Hahnemann, S.C.F, 1810. The Organon Of The Healing Art, Sixth Edition, Tr. Kunzli, Naude & Pendleton, Gollancz, London, 1983
6. Hahnemann, S.C.F, 1845. Chronic Diseases and their Homoeopathic Cure. Their Peculiar Nature and the Homoeopathic Cure (Theoretical Part), Calcutta: C Ringer & Co.
7. Hahnemann, S.C.F, Materia Medica Pura, vols. 1-4., New Delhi: B. Jain Books (2002)
8. Sarkar, B.K, Hahnemann Organon Commenatry
9. Sarkar, B.K, 1968. Essays on Homoeopathy, Calcutta
10. Vithoukas, G, 1980. The Science of Homeopathy, New York: Grove/Atlantic

External links

• HomeoInfo.com: Wide scope classical homeopathy issues
• What is homeopathy?
• About homeopathy
• A critical article on what is classical and what is pseudo-classical homeopathy, by Dr Rajesh Shah
• Is Hahnemannian Homeopathy doomed to go in to oblivion again? by Prof. George Vithoulkas

• Alternative medicine
• Homeopathy by type