Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 213

sponded properly to the original remedy; is the current remedy image clear enough to make another prescription? Or should more time pass to allow the true image to emerge?
These are but a few of the dilemmas confronting the homeopath during follow-up visits. Indeed, it can be said that the follow-up visit, even more than the initial interview, demands more knowledge, more sensitivity, and more judgment on the part of the homeopath. It is dur- ing the follow-up visits that the entire range of knowledge of homeopa- thy is brought to bear. The principles involved in the decisions made during these visits are verifiable and scientific in the truest sense, yet, again, their application demands such complexity in each individual case that it can only be considered an art.
It is a natural tendency for homeopathic prescribers to focus at- tention primarily upon finding the remedy. In conferences, study groups, and consultations with other homeopaths the primary topic is generally whether this remedy or that remedy should be prescribed. This is quite appropriate for the first prescription, of course, but a more important issue during follow-up visits is, “What is really happen- ing?” A profound knowledge of homeopathic theory is required for this judgment, and it is a far from easy question to answer in many cases. It is only after an adequate answer is decided upon that the ho- meopath can then decide whether to wait or whether to give another remedy. If further treatment seems to be required it must be decided whether it should be the same remedy or another, and whether a change
in potency is necessary.
The patient, as well, faces new challenges during the follow-up vis- it. Usually, during the initial interview, the patient has been impressed with the incredible amount of detail needed by the homeopath. This may lead to a tendency to focus upon details instead of the overall pattern of change. There is a strong desire to report the precise infor- mation needed, but there is also a powerful hope that the remedy is truly acting. Different patients respond to these pressures in different ways. An emotionally “closed” patient, one who takes a strongly ra- tional view of events and reveals information only when it is dramatic and definite, will tend to be overly cautious and may mislead the ho- meopath into deciding that the remedy has not acted. An emotionally “open” patient may become carried away with the desire to bring good news and thereby communicate information which is overly optimis- tic. A hypochondriacal patient, always intent upon impressing the pre- scriber with the importance of his or her problems, may emphasize insignificant details, disregard symptoms which have been alleviated, and exaggerate the seriousness of new symptoms. Oversensitive pa-