DO YOU REPERTORIZE



The first thing to look for is location, which is the right hypochondrium. Although the pain goes from the right hypochondrium to the left, use the place where it originated.

Now for the sensation and complaints: There are two, one of tearing and one of rawness. It was stated that the pain was a tearing and raw sensation. Under the Boenninghausen system, we are obliged to use two rubrics. One is tearing and one is rawness, but since they are both referred to the inner portion of the body, they are both referred to the inner portion of the body, they are tearing internally and rawness internally. We have now met two portions of the requirements, location and sensation.

Now we have to meet the conditions of aggravation and of amelioration; as to time and as to circumstances. The pain is worse before midnight. Translating this into repertory language, we use the rubric “aggravation in the forepart of the night.” The pain is also worse when lying down, from lying on the painful side, and from slight touch, all of which cover aggravation as to circumstances. Amelioration as to circumstances is covered by the rubric, “amelioration from walking”.

The fourth requirement for a complete symptom is a concomitant. Now, where is the concomitant in this case? Is it not the fact that the woman was pregnant? While there appears no relation between the symptom discussed and pregnancy itself, the occurrence of the complaint during pregnancy makes the fact of pregnancy in this instance important. Therefore, we use the rubric “pregnancy ” as the concomitant.

We have now “blocked out” the case. That is, we have translated into repertory language the language of the patient, have indicated what rubrics are pertinent to the symptomatology of the patient, within the structure of Boenninghausen’s system, keeping in mind the four important requirements of location, sensation, modality and concomitancy.

We are now ready to proceed to the next step, namely, a consideration of remedies which present a symptom picture similar to that of the patient. Among these the similimum will be found.

These simplest procedure in a simple case showing a single symptom is to choose a leading rubric then to select from that rubric all the remedies ranking 5 and 4 against which to run all the other rubrics of the case. In this instance we have chosen all the remedies under the rubric “right hypochondrium,” having a value of 5 and 4. These are: Aconite, Baryta carb., Ammonium carb., Belladonna, Bryonia, Chelidonium, Kali carb., Lycopodium, Nux vom., and Sepia. The remaining rubrics are now run against these remedies, the value of the remedies in relation to the particular rubric being set down opposite the remedy as shown in the accompanying diagram:

Acon. 5 3 3 4 4 3 4 3

Barc.c. 5 3 2 2 5 5 2 2

Am.c. 5 2 3 3 4 2 2

Bell. 5 5 5 2 4 3 3 5 5 9/37

Bry. 5 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 9/36 Lyc

9/38

Chel. 4 4 2 2 2 4 Bell

9/37

Cocc. 5 3 4 2 2 5 Sep

9/36

K.carb. 5 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 9/25 Bry

9/36

Lyc. 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 4 3 9/38

Nux v. 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 3

Rhus 3 2 4 5 4 4 2 5 4 9/33

Ruta 3 3 4 4 5 4 4

Sepia 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 9/36

Page 82 188 175 289 271 290 294 320 294

1. Right hypochondrium

2. Tearing internal

3. Rawness internal

4. Worse lying

5. Worse forepart of night

6. Worse lying on painful side

7. Worse pressure external

8. Ameliorated walking

9. Pregnancy.

A further glance at the diagram, which represents the repertorial workout, will show that only five remedies come through in the highest degree, i.e. covering all the rubrics and having the greatest numerical values. These are Lycopodium 9/38, Belladonna 9/37, Bryonia 9/36, Sepia 9/36 and Kali carb. 9/25.

The decision to prescribe Lycopodium was based not only upon the fact that it had the highest value, repertorially speaking, but also upon the characteristic direction of the pain, i.e. from right to left. The potency used was the 3x which cured.

The repertorial principle and method outlined form this simple case composed of a single symptom can be applied successfully to those cases exhibiting many symptoms or fragments of symptoms. The procedure is somewhat more complicated than for the case cited and takes considerable time but the results are comparable and consistently accurate. a word of warning to those not skilled in the use of the repertory must be added here: No repertory chooses the similimum; it simply eliminates those remedies which do not and can not cover the case. The court of last resort is always the Materia Medica.

80 MAIN STREET,

BRATTLEBORO, VT.

DISCUSSION

DR. EDWARD C. WHITMONT (New York, N.Y.): I asked Dr. Sutherland especially to speak on Boenninghausen because I admit I am at a loss about it, and it would be a great help if the different indications for Kent and for Boenninghausen could be brought out now.

DR. A.H. GRIMMER (Chicago, Ill.): Of course, I am in favor of anything that brings us to the remedy, and those who are used to working with one system will work better with that system, and I would advise them to stick to the way they have been trained and the way they have worked and gotten their results, but, as the Doctor has shown us here, if we analyze, we will se there isn’t such a vast difference, after all.

He takes the one symptom, but in his analysis of it, the demands that Boenninghausen makes for modalities, that is, the time and circumstance, and so forth make that symptom a fact, and there can be no question but that it is a genuine indication and that is brought out by Boenninghausen’s demands; also, that when you have a thing like that, you have what is termed generally a one-sided case; that is, it is only related to the one thing that that patient is complaining of, and otherwise the patient is well. Of course, that covers the whole case and becomes a very high grade general, because it is the patient, so, after all, they come down to the final analysis, and they come down to about the same principle.

DR. ALLAN D. SUTHERLAND (Brattleboro, Vt.): It is interesting that in comparing the results gained from Boenninghausen and Kent, you come to the same group of remedies. Now, we were at Forest Hills in Boston in 1946 with the Foundation Postgraduate School, and we had a nice class down there. There were one or two doubters, especially doubting Boenninghausen’s method. They all knew Kent and couldn’t see how boenninghausen was worth a dime and stated so in no uncertain terms.

One of them particularly, who was an Indian, was in a continual turmoil and state of argument with me over the effectiveness of Boenninghausen, so he handed me a case that he had already repertorized by means of Kent’s Repertory, which I didn’t know at the time, and said, “I wish you would repertorize this. We have been trying to help this man.” So I spent quite some time one evening and worked it out and brought in the list of remedies.

Remember, you very seldom come to any one single remedy in any repertorial study. You have eliminated all but three, four, or five, and have to go to the Materia Medica in the last analysis to determine which of them you will use for the patient.

I brought in a list of three or four remedies which had come through with Boenninghausen, the remedies which we had to compare with the patient, and with the Materia Medica to get the true similimum. Then he hauled out the sheets on which he repertorized according to Kent’s method, and he said, “Now, we will see,” and we did see. We had the same group of remedies in the Boenninghausen. One might have had the highest value in Kent and it might have had secondary value in Boenninghausen. Sepia might have been at the head of the list instead of Lycopodium, but the same remedies were there.

DR. GRIMMER: In the final analysis, the repertory will give you several, from which you have to choose the right one.

DR. SUTHERLAND: You will never hit the similimum if you depend entirely on the repertory.

DR. GRIMMER: Right! It never was intended for anything but to bring it down to a few remedies.

DR. WHITMONT: Boenninghausen is more suited for cases where you have a few symptoms or a symptom, rather than a broad constitutional state.

DR. SUTHERLAND: From a theoretical point of view, I wouldn’t say Boenninghausen was more suited, but just as well suited for a case with few symptoms as for a case with a lot of them, and this is an example of what I mean. This case had very few symptoms, as we usually understand symptoms, and so far as Boenninghausen’s method was concerned, it had just one symptom, because one symptom is comprised of four parts under Boenninghausen’s method: location; sensation; aggravation as to time and circumstance, amelioration as to time and circumstance; and concomitants. That group of four is a symptom.

DR. WHITMONT: Did you have two or three main symptoms, and the concomitant may be a symptom-either a symptom may be a concomitant or a sensation?.

DR. SUTHERLAND: Sometimes a sensation is a concomitant; sometimes a condition of aggravation or amelioration is a concomitant. A location rarely is a concomitant.

Allan D. Sutherland
Dr. Sutherland graduated from the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia and was editor of the Homeopathic Recorder and the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy.
Allan D. Sutherland was born in Northfield, Vermont in 1897, delivered by the local homeopathic physician. The son of a Canadian Episcopalian minister, his father had arrived there to lead the local parish five years earlier and met his mother, who was the daughter of the president of the University of Norwich. Four years after Allan’s birth, ministerial work lead the family first to North Carolina and then to Connecticut a few years afterward.
Starting in 1920, Sutherland began his premedical studies and a year later, he began his medical education at Hahnemann Medical School in Philadelphia.
Sutherland graduated in 1925 and went on to intern at both Children’s Homeopathic Hospital and St. Luke’s Homeopathic Hospital. He then was appointed the chief resident at Children’s. With the conclusion of his residency and 2 years of clinical experience under his belt, Sutherland opened his own practice in Philadelphia while retaining a position at Children’s in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department.
In 1928, Sutherland decided to set up practice in Brattleboro.