Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 292

Figure 24:

CASE IX:

Patient: “I was much better, but now I’m worse again.”
Case: Good amelioration following an aggravation, then a bit worse but still defi- nitely better than before the remedy.
Interpretation: Patient became dis

couraged after initial euphoria. Correct remedy. Good prognosis.
Prescription: Must wait. Another pre- scription at this point would probably cause a full relapse and disruption of the case.

CASE IX:

Now, let us return to a case in which true improvement has occurred. The patient reports a definite improvement for 20-25 days, but then a decline which the patient fears is the beginning of a relapse. In such cases, the homeopath must very carefully determine whether the patient is truly suf- fering as much as originally. It may be that even the suffering of the recent days is not nearly as bad as originally. It may also be discovered upon questioning that there was a definite aggravation preceding the ame- lioration.
In such a circumstance, it is quite likely that the patient has become overly elated from the dramatic relief, and now that he experiences some minor symptoms is afraid of a relapse. This psychology is analogous to that of a prisoner let out of prison, in whom there is an initial feeling of great liberation, a euphoria at being re- leased from the burden of suffering; then, the realities of life faced by most of us are encountered. Some of the normal com- plaints due to everyday stresses begin to creep back, and the patient reacts in fear that the euphoric condition will not last. Discouragement sets in, and during the follow-up interview the patient is intent upon communicating the fear of relapse in order to convince the prescriber to give a “stronger” medicine.
In such a case, when the patient is still truly better, even though discouraged and fearful of relapse the homeopath must be

very careful not to give another remedy. This is probably the most common mistake made by beginning prescribers. The inter- pretation is made that a higher potency is needed, or that another remedy must be given because of the “brevity” of the re- sponse. It is mistakenly concluded that the medicine has “worn off.” This is a serious mistake because even a repetition of the same remedy in the same potency can dis- order the action of the first remedy. Such disorder is later responded to by another remedy, and the process continues until the patient truly relapses back to the original state – but this time with symptomatology which perhaps no longer reveals a clear im- age.
This particular circumstance demon- strates most effectively of all the cases the need for caution and even suspicion on the part of the homeopath. The patient’s de- scriptions must not be merely taken at face value. Otherwise, even a curative response may be missed because of the patient’s de- sire to get the homeopath to respond. The pressures to prescribe another dose will be very great, but they must be resisted at all costs if the overall status of the patient is noticeably improved, even though the ear- lier amelioration was even more dramatic. Most likely, the seeming “relapse” will turn out to be mereiy a random fluctuation which, if left alone, will later show itself to be – on the average – progress toward cure.