FIDELITY vs. LOYALTY in THERAPEUTICS

FIDELITY vs. LOYALTY in THERAPEUTICS

(A CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY-4)

A case of arthritis (of the wrist) is being treated by homeopathy. There comes an attack of sore-throat with painful cough. One complaint is already very acute and painful (wrist), the other is no less serious: a full-fledged bronchitis. One way was to suspend arthritic treatment of the wrist, and tackle the bronchitis. The other was to continue the Viola-Odorata—which he was taking for the wrist, and alternate it with Carbo-veg., that was indicated in this case of bronchitis with sore-throat. These were still going on that a third eventuality ushered in: the patient has got bitten his cheek while chewing. A very sore ulcer has developed inside the cheek. Now a local application for the third episode was preferred over the oral medication, because, in this way, three medicines would come into the fray—which would, perhaps, not be advisable. But such ulcers of the mouth can be the outcome of some internal miasm, or an inherent tendency of the patient, for oral pathologies, for example:

• A tendency to bite tongue or cheek while chewing, for which Causticum, et.al. is the remedy.
• There can be a tendency to thrush or aphthous mouth.
• Or a tendency to recurrent ulcers of the mouth or tongue.

Such would not, therefore, be mere accidents, but an underlying malaise or miasmatic tendency, requiring a separate consideration. But as far as an accidental happening of biting the cheek while chewing is concerned we choose a topical application from anywhere. If Calendula takes time to heal it, we can choose anything from anywhere. Such ulcers should heal within 3 to 4 applications of such a topical agent, in the form of ointment or a gel. Evidently, we cannot go on adding medicines, one after the other, to be administered alternately, let alone the idea of remaining confined to one remedy. 

This last step can be considered, by some, as a sort of breach of fidelity to our system of medicine—which certainly it is not. Fidelity does not belong to the system, but to the patient. Restoration of health of the patients is our commitment. But in so doing our loyalty to our therapeutics should not be compromised. Between the fidelity to the betterment of the patient and the loyalty to the integrity of the system lies a turbulent chasm of conscience. The physician, who has to go either ways, has to wade through the troubled waters of conscience. He cannot act as a wanton prescriber without paying any heed to the principles of his therapeutics. He will choose any non-homeopathic means to help his patient in an odd and complicated situation with calculated care and responsibility based on serious judgment.

Taking help from other systems of therapeutic should not be considered as anathema. These systems are also based on theory and rich experience of ages past. I always advise my patients to go to an allopathic doctor, when some eventuality arises during their travel out of the station. The wisdom behind this instruction is my deep observation that allopathic medication never goes to that depth where our potencies are working; and that they will be washed away, out of the body, soon after having done their palliative work. So no question of disturbing the working of our remedies!

One must have read that even the most classical of the classical homeopaths, whole-heartedly allow their patients to undergo allopathic treatment from a dentist, if need arises. They won’t interfere in the use and mode of their prescriptions, whatever they might be.

Our conviction is: If a case can be dealt with homeopathically, it cannot be dealt with more appropriately in any other method of treatment.  

So be satisfied with the superlative efficacy of your own therapeutics, but at the same time keep your mind open, as an enlightened physician. Dogmatism is a thing of the past. It will only benight your perception, and keep you ignoramus.