A dose of the truly indicated constitutional remedy in proper potency and at proper intervals never hurt anybody and, more often than not, the recipient was greatly benefited thereby; but in some cases it may not prove to be all sufficient. Certain non-suppressive adjuvants have to be brought into play to aid in affecting the cure. It has been a question in my mind for some time that we might err in treating, or attempting to treat, things which are primarily psychological in origin and not necessarily constitutional.
One does not have to be in practice long to come in contact with a child to which one would like to apply Quercus (the species does not matter) in quite material dosage to the north elevation of the child while it is facing south at the level midway between the coronal suture and the os calcis. The child is usually of the “sassy” and destructive type, or the “mammas boy” type who must never be made to do anything that might make him cry because, through the no-yet-served “psychological umbilical cord,” it hurts mamma more than it does the child.
Either-type makes it difficult for the physician; the “sassy” type will not obey and the other type will not be made to obey. No other regimen than the remedy can be applied effectually. If either of these types is made worse from getting its feet wet, the “sassy” type will get them wet on the “Ill show you” basis and the other will get them wet on some pretext that over shoes hurt his feet. Of course we realize that there are many intermediate types and mixtures.
The sad part about it is that the parents need the above application of Quercus far more than the child. Promised whippings and other punishments are never carried out. What is funny at one time is a serious offense at another and the child is never made to understand why. There is neglect and over- attention just as injudiciously applied. To run over all the parental faults would be too time-consuming. Here is where the adjuvants should be applied.
Now the question is: Can the symptoms which result form improper training be removed by the constitutional remedy? Can they lead us astray by being the result of improper training rather than due to some constitutional trouble? Personally, I believe the answer to the first question can be qualified “yes”; to the second an emphatic “yes” unless we are very much on our toes. This is only one persons belief. What is yours?.