- Email: [email protected]
A first impression of homœopathy
A first impression of homoeopathy WILLIAM
HOUSE,
M.Bo, M.R.EoP.
When I arrived for the February 1977 short intensive course on homceopathy in London I knew no more about the subject than its name. I now know a little more but not as much as I might have learnt. I applied to attend the course for a number of reasons. Most important is a realization of the limitations of orthodox medicine and an unhappiness about some of the directions in which it is currently travelling. I believe I share this worry with m a n y young doctors, a growing section of the public, and no doubt the DHSS. I took the opportunity to attend the course during an unstructured period forming part of a three-year general practice vocational training scheme. I had completed six years of undergraduate training at a teaching hospital not so very far from the Royal London Homceopathic Hospital and five years of postgraduate clinical work including becoming a member of the Royal College of Physicians without homceopathy ever being mentSoned. I find this an extraordinary state of affairs. Firstly I congratulate the Faculty for holding the course and especially for providing a sheet inviting criticism at the end. I t was well organized, housed on the whole in pleasant surroundings and there were welcome breaks for coffee and tea. A fork supper was generously provided at Dr. Blackie's house and a dinner at the Bedford Hotel, neither of which I was able to attend but reports were very complimentary. My main purpose, however, is to make some critical comments which I hope will be useful and constructive. The greatest problem was t h a t members of the course varied from experienced homceopaths to complete beginners like myself with roughly equal numbers of each. I t could not be possible to establish a single educational objective with such a mixed group. The lecturers, in a~tempting to steer a course between the needs of the two, often failed both. On the few occasions when homceopaths and beginners were separated the sessions were more rewarding. A related criticism is t h a t no a t t e m p t was made to explain homceopathic jargon and for the first few days I and the other beginners understood little of what was going on. I f "potency", "in the 10M", "mentals", "pointer", "repertory", "specifics" and so on were defined in the first session or a glossary handed out this problem would have been largely avoided. The desirability of this private language is another question. There is a further difference between homceopaths and beginners which alters their educational needs: the homceopaths believed homceopathy works and the beginners did not. I think most of us were prepared to be convinced but certainly did not start with a firm belief in the hom0eopathie system's efficacy. So whereas the homceopaths wanted to discuss indications for Thuja, for instance, we had not got so far as to believe t h a t any of the remedies worked at all. We were amazed at the apparent lack of interest in ideas and research into
230
TH~
BRITISH
HOM(EOPATHIC
JOURNAL
the mechanism of action of homceopathio remedies. Some laboratory findings and hypotheses which I have subsequently come across are very interesting. A session devoted to this early on in thee course would havoc helped some of us lost souls to feel moroe at home. Woe would also have foelt loess bewildered if each speaker had been introduced by name and his qualifications for speaking had been briefly described b y the chairman. Thee construction and delivery of a formal lecture is a great art acquiroed by very few. Although some lectures were good, not all the lecturers had acquired the art. The poorly recounted anecdote formed too large a part of m a n y lectures. There are various ways of overcoming this inevitable problem, such as dividing course members into small groups, each led by a teacher; or to restrict lectures to only one third or one half of the available time, leaving the remainder for discussion. This should be led and co-ordinated by the chub'man who could invite homceopaths in the audience to comment on points raised in thee lecture. A few of the sessions had been arranged in these ways and were much more valuable. For beginners there is a need for more practical advice on starting out in homceopathy. A homceopathioe history-taking format would have been valuable as a hand-out. Simple unambiguous guidance on potencies and dose frequencies is needed despite the disagroeemoent I detected amongst the h o m ~ o p a t h s on this point. Small uncertuinties such as these which are virtually impossible to clarify in any of the homceopathic textbooks could easily discourage a busy general practitioner from ever making a start. Doctors of m y generation have an education based on logic and modern scientific m e t h o d . As p a r t of this woe are taught to be critical of claims for success in therapy; the potential pitfalls in drawing conclusions from anecdotal accounts are drummed in from an early stage. Whether this is desirable or not, it is the background from which all newly qualified doctors will come to the course. I f the Faculty of Homceopathy wishes to attract young doctors it will need to speak their language; it will need to find common ground with allopathie medicine; it will need to critically examine its beliefs in the light of scientific advance and be seen to be doing so; it will need to bring its language and especially its literature up to date. There is a great opportunity now for homceopathy to increase its support and theroefore to be more widely available to the public. Technological medicinoe is beginning to be seen as irrelevant to the bulk of h u m a n suffering and it is much too expensive. Health care is moving back to the human being, his family and the community. Homceopathy with its problem-orioentated approach should be making a bigger eontributdon. Allopathie and homcepathie disciplines could learn much from each other, b u t this will not happen unless they both strive to meet on common ground.
HOUSE,
M.Bo, M.R.EoP.
When I arrived for the February 1977 short intensive course on homceopathy in London I knew no more about the subject than its name. I now know a little more but not as much as I might have learnt. I applied to attend the course for a number of reasons. Most important is a realization of the limitations of orthodox medicine and an unhappiness about some of the directions in which it is currently travelling. I believe I share this worry with m a n y young doctors, a growing section of the public, and no doubt the DHSS. I took the opportunity to attend the course during an unstructured period forming part of a three-year general practice vocational training scheme. I had completed six years of undergraduate training at a teaching hospital not so very far from the Royal London Homceopathic Hospital and five years of postgraduate clinical work including becoming a member of the Royal College of Physicians without homceopathy ever being mentSoned. I find this an extraordinary state of affairs. Firstly I congratulate the Faculty for holding the course and especially for providing a sheet inviting criticism at the end. I t was well organized, housed on the whole in pleasant surroundings and there were welcome breaks for coffee and tea. A fork supper was generously provided at Dr. Blackie's house and a dinner at the Bedford Hotel, neither of which I was able to attend but reports were very complimentary. My main purpose, however, is to make some critical comments which I hope will be useful and constructive. The greatest problem was t h a t members of the course varied from experienced homceopaths to complete beginners like myself with roughly equal numbers of each. I t could not be possible to establish a single educational objective with such a mixed group. The lecturers, in a~tempting to steer a course between the needs of the two, often failed both. On the few occasions when homceopaths and beginners were separated the sessions were more rewarding. A related criticism is t h a t no a t t e m p t was made to explain homceopathic jargon and for the first few days I and the other beginners understood little of what was going on. I f "potency", "in the 10M", "mentals", "pointer", "repertory", "specifics" and so on were defined in the first session or a glossary handed out this problem would have been largely avoided. The desirability of this private language is another question. There is a further difference between homceopaths and beginners which alters their educational needs: the homceopaths believed homceopathy works and the beginners did not. I think most of us were prepared to be convinced but certainly did not start with a firm belief in the hom0eopathie system's efficacy. So whereas the homceopaths wanted to discuss indications for Thuja, for instance, we had not got so far as to believe t h a t any of the remedies worked at all. We were amazed at the apparent lack of interest in ideas and research into
230
TH~
BRITISH
HOM(EOPATHIC
JOURNAL
the mechanism of action of homceopathio remedies. Some laboratory findings and hypotheses which I have subsequently come across are very interesting. A session devoted to this early on in thee course would havoc helped some of us lost souls to feel moroe at home. Woe would also have foelt loess bewildered if each speaker had been introduced by name and his qualifications for speaking had been briefly described b y the chairman. Thee construction and delivery of a formal lecture is a great art acquiroed by very few. Although some lectures were good, not all the lecturers had acquired the art. The poorly recounted anecdote formed too large a part of m a n y lectures. There are various ways of overcoming this inevitable problem, such as dividing course members into small groups, each led by a teacher; or to restrict lectures to only one third or one half of the available time, leaving the remainder for discussion. This should be led and co-ordinated by the chub'man who could invite homceopaths in the audience to comment on points raised in thee lecture. A few of the sessions had been arranged in these ways and were much more valuable. For beginners there is a need for more practical advice on starting out in homceopathy. A homceopathioe history-taking format would have been valuable as a hand-out. Simple unambiguous guidance on potencies and dose frequencies is needed despite the disagroeemoent I detected amongst the h o m ~ o p a t h s on this point. Small uncertuinties such as these which are virtually impossible to clarify in any of the homceopathic textbooks could easily discourage a busy general practitioner from ever making a start. Doctors of m y generation have an education based on logic and modern scientific m e t h o d . As p a r t of this woe are taught to be critical of claims for success in therapy; the potential pitfalls in drawing conclusions from anecdotal accounts are drummed in from an early stage. Whether this is desirable or not, it is the background from which all newly qualified doctors will come to the course. I f the Faculty of Homceopathy wishes to attract young doctors it will need to speak their language; it will need to find common ground with allopathie medicine; it will need to critically examine its beliefs in the light of scientific advance and be seen to be doing so; it will need to bring its language and especially its literature up to date. There is a great opportunity now for homceopathy to increase its support and theroefore to be more widely available to the public. Technological medicinoe is beginning to be seen as irrelevant to the bulk of h u m a n suffering and it is much too expensive. Health care is moving back to the human being, his family and the community. Homceopathy with its problem-orioentated approach should be making a bigger eontributdon. Allopathie and homcepathie disciplines could learn much from each other, b u t this will not happen unless they both strive to meet on common ground.