Books

THE BERN SEMINAR_PAGE 4

a case in which one remedy is indicated throughout the patient’s life – let’s say that they were Phosphorus as a child, Phosphorus later on, and now the patient comes to me and I perceive him as Phosphorus – then I can predict, with great certainty, that this patient is going to respond to Phosphorus very well, and that Phosphorus is going to bring about tremendous changes. The case I just mentioned would bring on what we call »a very great cure.«
Sometimes the terminology we use for describing these sorts of cases can be a bit confusing. When we see one remedy indicated throughout a person’s lifetime, we speak of the remedy as being a constitutional remedy. When we give this remedy we are constitutionally prescribing. What exactly is a constitutional prescription? We say that a practitioner of classical homeopathy – that means one remedy at a time – engages in constitutional prescribing; but we must see that in such cases, where only one remedy is indicated throughout the patient’s entire life, the remedy is considered to be more constitutional than in other cases. Most probably this remedy will be needed in repetition; that is to say, whenever the patient has a relapse he will most probably go into Phosphorus. First, we have to know the prognosis; and then if the case proves to be constitutional – the symptomatology runs throughout the patient’s life – chances are great that a constitutional remedy will be called for. Second, we know that the remedy will act for a very long time. That means, if you have given a remedy that is constitutional, you can expect a relapse after two, three, or four years. If your patient experiences an earlier relapse, you have to question what’s been going on in the case. Did he antidote the remedy? Was the remedy perhaps not exact? Other differentiating points will crop up through such questioning; but if your remedy is really constitutional, then the prognosis is nevertheless very good, because the remedy is clear and its duration very long. This theory can be compared with the theory of miasms and serves to explain why in one case only a single remedy is needed and repeated over several years, while other cases may require two or more remedies before we see the same results that we attained in other cases with one remedy. If we had had the opportunity to examine the case more closely or in greater detail, or if we had more information on the remedies themselves, we might have found that even in a typical Phosphorus constitutional case there is the possibility that another remedy might be indicated as well, although this additional remedy is not easily identified. Difficulty arises because the person will say that he feels well, and if he feels well there is