Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 229

Provided that the remedy was correct and nothing was done to in- terfere with it, the patient feels unequivocably better “inside.” Cases exhibiting this response have the best prognosis, despite the pathologi- cal diagnosis. They can be expected to remain in this dramatically improved state for six months to several years, provided no chemical interferences or overwhelming stresses intervene.
If such a patient acquires an acute ailment, it can be expected to be relatively mild and self-limited. There should be no need for homeo- pathic treatment. Indeed, it is preferable to allow the system to handle it itself. Of course, this principle does not always apply; the patient may encounter a very powerful morbific stimulus – say, a prolonged and severe exposure to the elements, resulting in pneumonia or severe bronchitis. In this unusual instance, homeopathic prescribing will be needed, but it should be relatively easy. A patient with a strong de- fense mechanism, even during an acute ailment, will tend to generate a symptom picture which points clearly to the needed remedy. Only one prescription, or at the most two, will be sufficient to cure the acute illness, and the chronic state will remain in a cured state.
Patients belonging to the first category tend to remain relatively well for two to five years after the original prescription. If they do re- turn for more treatment, it is usually for minor problems. After the first consultation, the homeopath often hears nothing from such patients for several years, and it is easy to falsely assume that their response to the medicine must have been disappointing. It is only years later that the homeopath learns that the original prescription produced a “miracu- lous” cure.
Occasionally, even patients belonging to the first category undergo such a severe stress that the defense mechanism is overwhelmed, and a full relapse occurs. This could occur following a very severe grief, a profoundly damaging business reversal, or a very severe physical inju- ry. In the case of such a relapse, the homeopath must carefully re-take the case in its entirety; very likely, it will be found that the original remedy is still indicated. It should then be given in a higher potency. It is also possible that a “complementary” remedy will be indicated.
In many homeopathic circles, it is common to refer to the “constitu- tional remedy,” as if a particular individual requires only a single rem- edy. This terminology can properly be applied to patients possessing strong defense mechanisms who tend to require the same remedy over a period of years, whether for minor complaints or for relapses after severe stresses. As we shall see, however, this concept does not apply as readily to other categories of chronic patients.
It is not infrequent that a patient who has responded with a dramatic