Expressions of Remedies

Jan Scholten, MD, Servaasbolwerk 13, 3521 NK Utrecht, The Netherlands

The one and only correct remedy

There is a widespread opinion among homoeopaths that there is only one remedy that is the right one for any particular patient. The term constitutional remedy really says it all: one remedy that fits the patient for the rest of his life, curing him of all his ailments whatever that may be. That remedy is supposed to fit his habits, his build, his character, his personality, everything. It is the remedy that corresponds his deepest problem, which he has been carrying around with him since his early childhood.

We know that homoeopath think in types and idealized pictures because we hear expressions like "this women is typical Calceria" or "I have not found his remedy yet".

The one and only remedy is hardly ever seen in practice

The situation in homoeopathic practice is not quite as well as the above mentioned example. People like Vithoulkas and Masi have found that only in 5% of the cases is the remedy sufficient to cure the whole patient. And even then we might ask whether this percentage is correct, because we do not know how many years follow up have been recorded: 5, 10, 20 yrs? A patient may get problem of his old age, as happens for instance in case of Amalgam poisoning,  or in epidemics etc. 

More than one delusion

Practice shows that the ideal situation of the one and only remedy hardly ever exists. But how about the theory, does this ideal picture really fits? We know that we can view our diseases and our remedies as an expression of basic delusion (Shankaran, Scholten). But anyone who has taken sometime to affect his own life will have discovered that you can have more than one (basic) delusion. The prejudices, restrictions, taboos etc., we take from parents, teachers and friends are in fact to more than one illusions. So the fact that we have more than one delusion pleads against the existence of the single remedy.

There is no argument to support the ideal of the one and only remedy

There is really no argument to support this theory. The only argument we could use is the fact that when a patient gets a deep acting remedy his whole being reacts positively and he improves on many levels. But even here we often see that there are some problems that remain totally unaffected by the remedy, so that there are some physical complaints or emotional particularities that do not change at all. Another hypothesis we need form time to time is the one that a patient has one basic delusion and all other delusions are a result of that. And you may treat these "Secondary delusions" one by one as they come up until you eventually reach the core problem. But if you had given the remedy that belongs to this central problem right in the start all the others would not have been necessary. However, once again, practice has improved that this is not always the case . The remedy that fits the basic delusion frequently leaves other problems untouched. And these problems have to be cleared up later with other, complementary remedies, because the "one and only" basic delusion remedy cannot shift them.

The patient isn't a remedy

There is another argument we could bring in against the ideal constitutional remedy. It is connected to the statement that the patient is a remedy. But this is precisely what a patient isn't! Somebody may have a problem, but that doesn't mean   he is the problem. If someone were his problem he could never be cured, and we know that this isn't true. In this respect we could see disease as a creation. If someone has certain problems, and he is able to let go off then we know that he isn't the problem.

The confusion is caused partially by the difference between problem and type of person. If you see a remedy in terms of person you are more inclined to identify the person who need that remedy as "being" that type. But if you see a remedy as a presentation of a problem, then you can see patients as people who have problems.

I prefer not to use the term constitutional remedy anymore; it causes too much confusion. It suggests that somebody is a remedy, and that he remains that remedy for the rest of his life. This is not to say that some patients do not have problems that go so deep that these affect their whole posture, their build, or their looks. In these cases, you might indeed speaks of a constitutional remedy.

The real remedy has to cure

This leads us to next argument against the ideal remedy, if there were such a remedy then the state that belongs to the remedy should be cured sooner or later. It might take a few years and a few repeat prescriptions, but one day we should see a cure. If this were not the case then homoeopathic remedies prove to be a lot weaker than we have always assumed. They would be no better than most allopathic medicines, which can only palliate either. The only difference would be that the homoeopathic palliation lasted a bit longer. But if our remedies could really cure the patient would reach a state where he had no problems and no complaints. Would this state hold? It would mean the end of road of development, as he would be in a state of utopia or enlightenment. We do not often see this in practice. Usually the road goes on and the life presents us with new problems.

The remedy as a part of problem

A remedy be need to solve the problem. Vithoulkas calls this "the treatment of one layer". One patient often has several layers or problems. By dealing with these problems one by one we can reach a state of balance. Sometime it is quite easy to differentiate between these problems and to see them as separate, with their separate causes, and concomitant complaints. A sound knowledge of the mental/ emotional problems of a remedy is essential to help us differentiate. 

Remedy as psychological problem

A remedy may be need for a specific psychological problem, not necessarily accompanied by any physical symptoms. Such as psychological problem may exists side  by side with other, perhaps bigger problem.

Remedy as physical problem

There are situations where a remedy is needed without there being apparent psychological problem. While treating a case it reminds us of the biblical expression that the "diseases of the fathers will be passed on to the children", for at least three generations. It is as if some problems arise within a family, going on until they reach a certain height and then slowly decreasing and disappearing again.

Reproduced from Journal of Homoeopathy Vol3 No 4 Oct- Dec 1999

 << Research & Philosophy