Login or Create an Account
Search Refine Filters
Search for

Homeopathic Cases Appearing to Call for Two Remedies

print email
Modalities: Homeopathy
Conditions: chronic illness

Q: How should one procede when, on analyzing a case, it appears that you can see "layers" of two or more different remedies in the case - one remedy covering one portion of the case, and another covering another portion? Which remedy should you give first?

Usually when the totality of symptoms appears to be partially covered by each of two remedies, the simillimum to the case is yet to be found; the simillimum will cover the full totality when (& if) it is found. It is quite rare that the picture of successive "layers" of a case are observable simultaneously. One should continue to look for the simillimum, or (granted that one has analyzed the case as carefully as possible) procede with the best-suited remedy, knowing that this similimum may only be a "close-enough-icum" that will open the case per §s 162 - 184 of the Organon.

Refer to the Organon, §169:

If in examining a case and choosing a remedy for the first time one finds that the symptom complex of the disease is not sufficiently covered by the symptoms of any one remedy, because not enough medicines are known [my note - either to homoeopathy or to the homoeopath], and that two medicines rival each other in suitability, the first homoeopathically fitting one part of the symptoms more and the second another part, it is not advisable after giving the better of the two to resort to the other without re-evaluating the case{a}, because the medicine found in the beginning to be the second best might no longer fit the symptoms remaining under the altered circumstances.
In such cases a different remedy homoeopathically more suitable should be selected instead of the second one for the newly assessed set of symptoms.

{a.} And much less advisable to give both together (par. 273).

In other words, one finds the single best similimum one can. If it is the simillimum to the case, that is wonderful (§164); if it is a "close-enough-icum", the response will not be exceptional (§165), and the case needs to be retaken following its action and a second prescription found on the remaining and possibly altered symptoms. Refer to §s 162 - 184, and to Kent's Lecture on the Second Prescription for detailed guidance.

The (unusual) exception would be in a complex disease (see the Organon, §s 40 - 42), in which two or even more rarely three dissimilar diseases coexist, dividing up the economy of the body in their expression. This is not a common occurence in chronic illness. When it does occur, it will be apparent in the timeline of development of the disease(s), and in the internal consistency of each of the dissimilar diseases affecting the organism. Here, the "burden of proof" will lie in the inability to find a coherent picture for a single remedy covering the total disease picture, the demonstration of dissimilar processes (e.g., psora and sycosis) dividing up the economy of the organism (see §s 40 & 42), and the often successive development of the dissimilar disease processes in the timeline of the case. Cases that fit this picture are unusual enough in my experience, that the few that I've seen stand out clearly in my memory. Dissimilar diseases will much more often displace each other, so that only the foremost one is evident in the present case, and become apparent in their successive appearance in the developmental timeline and in their reexpression in the course of healing, as described in the Organon in §38.

© 1998 Will Taylor, MD

Last Updated Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:38
This article was written by VitalityLink Finder
All articles on Homeopathy

Add comment (if you already have an account, please login first)

Security code