It is by no means a disregard of pathology when Hahnemann advises always to give the remedy according to the symptoms in each case, and not according to the names of diseases. Hahnemann, according to the strictest method which he rigorously followed during his life, wanted us to look to the reality; to the real sick individual; to take an image of all the symptoms, and compare such a picture of the one reality with the other, that is, with the real symptoms of a drug. All who follow Hahnemanns advice are much more successful, though of course never pretending to be infallible.
CAMDEN, N. J.
DISCUSSION.
DR. BAKER: I think that point of the evaluation of symptoms is an awfully strong one. You might have a whole bunch of symptoms and it doesnt mean anything. It is ability to select the symptom that really means something that enables one to give a good prescription.
DR. MC LAREN: Evaluation of symptoms is the stumbling block for the younger homoeopaths and for the older ones, too. You get a number of symptoms, and if these symptoms seem to us important we may put the wrong value on them, and in doing that and working out the case in the repertory we arrive at the wrong remedy, so that too much stress can not be placed upon the proper evaluation of the symptoms.
In some cases, when we see them, we have no trouble at all in deciding on the remedy. You know that case is a Belladonna case. These are usually the acute cases and we dont have much trouble with them, but the chronic cases require a great deal of study, and before you start to make your repertory study at all you should clearly put the symptoms in order, the ones which you feel are of the greatest value in selecting the remedy, the ones which are going to really point the remedy, and then start in on your repertorial analysis, and you will have some real success, but if you start it off in a haphazard way you are lost.
DR. BELLOKOSSY: I find it is impossible to evaluate the symptoms without continuous study of the materia medica, and studying the materia medica it is best to studying Herings Guiding Symptoms, and then only the textbooks, and to repeat that constantly. Then only can you evaluate the symptoms. Having only the repertory and having the symptoms of the patient, and evaluating the symptoms according to the repertory rubrics is not enough. One never can evaluate symptoms by the repertory rubrics.
DR. DIXON: In taking a new case I assume we all write out a history. I have a habit, in taking that history, of underscoring symptoms that appear to be significant. It helps me in making the selection of the important rubrics and I have often run a check on that after the case was complete, to see if those scored symptoms were always important, and they dont always work through. Some of those that I have underscored as I took the history I have found were really common symptoms of the condition pointed out, and we dont like to underscore the common symptoms; it is the particulars.
DR. HAYES: I agree with Dr. Bellokossy on the value of the study of the materia medica, studying the evaluation there in comparison with the evaluations of the repertory. I think the materia medica is much more valuable.
It seemed to me that one of the most thoughtful points of Dr. Lewandowskis paper was in the first part of it, the study of the order of the symptoms and their relation to each other throughout the whole individual case. I wish somebody more competent than myself would discuss that very point.
DR. MC LAREN: I would like to just say another word. As we say such and such a case is Belladonna case or an Arsenicum case, the better we know our materia medica the greater the number of cases which will fall into these classifications.
DR. LEWANDOWSKI: May I permitted to state that oftentimes we have accused of being called symptom seekers, symptom finders, and we have been accused of not knowing enough about pathology and diagnosis. I want to impress upon the audience that we certainly should not be ignorant of the fact that first of all we must be students, we must be academic enough to bring out thoughts before the allopathic school that we know what we are talking about.
Besides naming a patient a Belladonna or Pulsatilla case, we can just as well say that this is a case of scarlet fever, so that we may be on the same footing, notwithstanding the fact that we graduate first as Doctors of Medicine and then as special Doctors of Homoeopathic Medicine.
I have often been confused, in taking histories, to depend upon the totality symptoms, notwithstanding what we mean by totality symptoms. Many times I have gathered pages and pages of symptoms, and couldnt make a case out of it, purely because I failed to realize that Hahnemann meant, by the totality symptoms, the characteristic symptoms, not merely the numerical value of the symptoms, which oftentimes leads one off the track; and in addition, as regards diagnosis in treating cases, we must first diagnose because that helps us to select remedies that have a special interest. For instance, if we select Chelidonium or Podophyllum and we suspect the case is purely one of gall-bladder disturbance, it immediately confines our attention to a set number of remedies which helps us in a quick fashion to define our case and select our peculiar number of remedies.
