Page 9 - Spring 25

way to help many patients with advanced and irreversible pathology, such as the two above.
In the Introduction to his wonderful little
handbook “A Guide to the Methodologies
of Homoeopathy”, Ian Watson says “One
of my goals for homoeopathy is that it may
be picked up and used by anyone in a way
that is more or less commensurate with
their current level of understanding and
expertise.” This is such an important
point. The experience of seeing such responses to
very basic, and non-classical, homeopathic prescribing in my early days gave me the confidence to vigorously apply myself to my training, and the determination to attain a deeper understanding, which benefitted so many patients during my time in practice. I was able to use homeopathy on a regular basis, both within the limitations of a ten- minute routine consultation and at a constitutional level following a full one-hour anamnesis. Sometimes, in these routine clinic appointments, homeopathy was the sole modality used, and sometimes it was part of a multi- modal therapeutic approach (often out of necessity due to the limited time available per patient, or because of owner reluctance to only have homeopathy treatment when they had come for a “conventional” ten-minute appointment). A lot more can be, and has been, written about the different levels of intervention with different potencies, but, in my opinion, the idea that homeopathy can only be “single dose, wait and see” would not only come at the cost of depriving many patients of homeopathic relief offered commensurate with the level of understanding and ability of the clinician, but could also deprive the dwindling homeopathic community of many a potential future homeopath, discouraged by the seeming disdain of their
treatment by the more experienced classical homeopathy advocates.
So where does this leave us in the discussion about healing and curing? In the cases quoted above, it can be argued that neither took place; however, it is clear that homeopathic
intervention had a beneficial effect on both patients. The approach taken was concentrating in trying to achieve a limited “cure”, that is a reduction in the clinical symptoms causing
distress, but with no expectation of “healing” in the common usage of the term. So “curing” is the elimination, and partial curing the partial reduction of, the physical signs/symptoms of the presented disorder. It takes place on the physical level (the body) and can be affected by lower potency prescribing (a more direct, local reaction), as well as by higher potency prescribing, when physical changes consequential to deeper “healing” can be
seen.
“Heil”, as mentioned in the beginning, means well-being, implying a wholeness, and “heilig” means sacred. When we speak of healing, we are talking about something so much more than the removal of the superficial symptoms; healing is a fundamental, energetic shift at the deepest level, leading to positive long-term consequences as well as physical changes (within the limits of the degree of pathology). Curing is a physical process, whereas true healing is a spiritual one, one which results in the physical changes of “cure”.
I knew a remarkable young man called Matthew while I was in practice, who I had known from a young age. One of the joys of being rooted in one place for over 35 years is that you get to see generations grow up in front of you, and the new generations they create also! He has been a
massive inspiration to me. The whole family was a beautiful one, a real pleasure to have in the surgery, always grateful, always smiling, always patient. Sadly, he got an incurable brain cancer when in his later teens. He began writing a journal, which eventually found its way (I’m not sure by what means) into the local paper. From there it was seen by the Mail on Sunday, and eventually, one week, he had a full centre-spread article about him and his writing. He wrote how incredibly thankful he was to have cancer(!), that he had been sleep-walking through life before this, and now all the colours were so vibrant, the earth so beautiful, everything he experienced was at an enhanced level. Such a level of appreciation and connectivity with nature would have probably eluded him had he not been blessed by the cancer he was bearing, he said. He showed no anger or self-pity, only gratitude. He remained accepting and contented until his death.
Imagine he had been presented as a patient who was not in such a contented state, but was agitated, fearful, or angry. You give him/her a constitutional remedy following full anamnesis. Following the treatment the cancer remained unaltered, yet he/she changed markedly in themselves, and developed a huge inner contentedness and serenity which remained with them until their passing. Would you say your treatment had been successful? I would without question! Homeopathy can only enhance and optimise natural processes, and if this flow is towards death, then it will optimise this process too. I heard Sue Armstrong once say that homeopathy often helps give cancer patients a “good death”, which can be a lot better than a “bad cure”. [Discuss!]. Have you “cured” your patient? No. Will this be accepted by the conventional medical community as a successful homeopathic intervention in a case of cancer? No. What you have done, though, is to facilitate healing to the
7
continued on p8