Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 214

tients may experience dramatic changes after taking the initial dose, only to pay inadequate attention to more long-term changes.
Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that patients must provide re- ports which are as accurate and objective as possible. Notes may be kept by patients who are liable to forget the pattern of changes, but they should not be kept by detail-oriented patients who are likely to lose track of the general picture. At the same time, the homeopath must be much more cautious about responses given during follow-up interviews. As mentioned earlier, there are particular problems associ- ated with case-taking during the initial interview; this is even more true during follow-up interviews, but the problems are quite different. The patient’s responses should always be inquired into in great detail in order to determine the true pattern of changes occurring. This must be done with great care, always keeping in mind the serious disruption which can occur from an incorrect remedy, or from one which is im- properly timed. Many homeopathic prescribers are quite able to select the proper remedy at the first visit, but a considerable percentage of these later ruin the initial success by interfering at the wrong time or with incorrect remedies.
Take, for example, a patient of a relatively “closed” nature who has received the correct constitutional remedy, but during the follow-up visit is as yet uncertain whether the remedy has acted. He does not want to be overly optimistic, so he reports that he has not noticed any definite change. The homeopath then retakes the case, notes only a few changes which are readily explained by environmental factors, and decides that a new remedy must be given because no significant change has occurred. Upon re-studying the case, the original remedy still looks very good, but because it didn’t seem to work, a second- choice remedy is given. On the next visit, it still appears that very little progress has been made, so still another remedy is tried. After five months of prescribing, the patient finally comments. “You know, of all the remedies that you gave me, that first one seemed to do the most good; I remember some definite changes back then.” This is the most exasperating situation for a homeopath, because after so many medicines it may not be possible simply to repeat the original remedy; the case may have become so disrupted that the original medicine is no longer indicated, but it also may have become so confused that even the current image is difficult to discern.
The danger of misjudging the response during the second interview can be so serious that I will sometimes resort to somewhat drastic measures. If I suspect that such a “closed” patient is withholding the true story, I may say, “OK. Since there appears to have been no prog-