Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 193

then, we would strongly consider Gelsemium.

Now, this sounds like a very cut-and-dried process, but in actual practice it is much more complex. It is quite unusual that a remedy will run through so many rubrics at all steps along the line. As we encounter smaller and smaller rubrics, we pay more attention to the remedies contained therein. But we must also be constantly aware of the vagaries of the entire process. Many questions are always kept in mind: How accurate is the patient’s description of “Bursting”? Could this possibly be better described by “Pressing,” “Lancinating,” “Shoot- ing,” “Stitching,” or “Tearing”? Is it really in the forehead, or might it be more in the temples, or even above the eyes, behind the eyes, or in the face? How reliable is the 10 A.M. aggravation? Should we use Morning, On Rising, or On Waking?

Also, we must always keep in mind the uncertainties about the Rep- ertory itself. When we get to the smaller rubrics, we must continually be wondering: Did Kent include all the possible remedies? Are there newer remedies whose provings might possibly include this symptom? Are there old remedies which might include this symptom, but which haven’t yet been recorded?

It is because of all these uncertainties that we keep a careful eye open for all the rubrics along the way to the final one which includes all the characteristics given by the patient. In the above example, we would give strong consideration to Gelsemium because it was included in most of the rubrics along the way (although not all).

This painstaking process is continued for every symptom of im- portance given by the patient. It requires a great deal of study and reflection. Gelsemium may appear very strong for this symptom, but it may not show up at all for some other symptoms given by the same patient. It is at this point that skill, experience, judgment, and a very good knowledge of materia medica come into play.

It is all of these uncertainties which render routine computerized prescribing ineffective. The original case must be accurately and care- fully taken; the totality of symptoms must then be listed correctly and with proper emphasis according to intensity, peculiarity, and mental/ physical generality; and finally, the actual selection of rubrics must be correctly made.

Once again, it must always be remembered that repertorization is merely a clue, a hint. It is designed merely to get us “in the ballpark.” In the last analysis, the results of repertorization must be forgotten while the homeopath’s full attention is placed upon a study of materia medicas. The goal, after all, is to match the “essence” and totality of the patient’s symptoms with that of the remedy. The remedy is best de-