The issue of reliability in outcomes of prescriptions in Homoeopathy is an interesting one, and always contentious when it comes to how practitioners attempt to create reliability. It’s not just Homoeopathy – all kinds of medical therapy have this issue, and the reality is NOBODY ever achieves 100%. The human condition, the complexity of our bodies and hearts and minds, and the unique ability of humans to connect to various substances in the world in an energetic/spiritual manner, means there will always be significant challenges for healers. Claims by ANYBODY that they cure 100% of the time should be met with extreme skepticism.
Homoeopathy came about as a response to the mechanically prescribing Allopathic system. Protocols which were applied without consideration for the uniqueness of the individual and their disease-experience , created the need and shaped the philosophy of Homoeopathy. Hahnemann railed endlessly against protocols, against ‘unintelligent’ methods where prescriptions ‘fly out of the mouth like pigeons’. The more Homoeopathy developed, the further away from the idea of giving specific remedies for specific medical conditions it went. Allopathy on the other hand moved further and further towards the philosophy of ‘one size fits all’ and we all know how that has turned out.
So you can see how returning to the idea of protocols conflicts with the very heart and soul of Homoeopathy. It is why we always voice concern and suspicion about it. Most of the evidence in Homoeopathy regarding cure of chronic disease centers around the use of individualized medicines, so when practitioners state that the reputation of Homoeopathy’s ability to cure somehow relates to their use of protocols, it is a misrepresentation on their part. You cannot use the proof of Homoeopathy’s effectiveness when using individualized treatment, as proof that doing the opposite works!
I understand how difficult Homoeopathy is. I think anyone who has been able to last even a couple of years in practice will confirm it is a very tough gig, and that as your ability to deal with one level of problems increases, you discover another level beyond it which challenges you again to learn and grow and find new tools. Homoeopaths have to grow into their Wisdom, there is no shortcut to it that can be given out to others. Replacing that Wisdom with rote prescriptions simply doesn’t make sense. I’d rather encourage the growth of Wisdom in my patients than try to dump them in a situation where they have no experience or tools to cope with it. Some of them do that, over time, they learn to see things as a Homoeopath sees them, and can become very good at knowing what is important to consider for choosing medicines. My greatest allies are experienced Homoeopathic patients! We can achieve so much more together that way.
There is a problem, no doubt – how to allow untrained people to use something that requires a lot of training and experience? I don’t believe it is by throwing out all the principles that define Homoeopathy, that make it entirely unique amongst other healing modalities. Remove those, what is left? You may as well just go back to Herbs and Supplements. That uniqueness is worth fighting for, it is a window into a depth of healing that simply cannot be achieved any other way.
Instead people need to become immersed in the philosophy. Homoeopathy really does become part of a certain lifestyle, a way of looking at health and disease and nature and the world. Without that, just giving people mathematical equations to follow, is about as successful as it would be in teaching someone to fall in love by following strict set of instructions. Sure you can give someone proverbs to follow, but how useful are they for complicated human interactions?
Homoeopathy actually requires a lot of both practitioners and patients. I have never agreed with trying to turn it into Allopathy, into junk food medicine. The very essence of Homoeopathy goes against that approach. Forcing it into that mold just takes away the soul of Homoeopathy. I feel like practitioners who go this way have lost their connection to the spirit of Homoeopathy too, which is sad. I see it happen, it happens to many who cannot evolve their practice to deal with more complex and difficult cases.
Regressing back to Allopathic methods is not the way forward for a Homoeopath who may be frustrated with lack of results in certain cases. This is not ‘modern’ Homoeopathy. It is the same old problems Hahnemann saw when he set out on his journey to discover a genuine healing art. Nobody can claim they are moving forward by returning to the old Allopathic practices of suppression, palliation, and lack of individualization in treatments. This is a defeat, and it is a defeat that is without need or reason. Real ‘modern’ Homoeopathy is already being developed by people like Jan Scholten and Rajan Sankaran and many others, by increasing our systems of classification, by increasing our access to the number of remedies to prescribe, by improving our understanding of the vital force and how it speaks to us. Kingdom prescribing, Periodic Table prescribing, Sensation Prescribing, Universal Layer Prescribing, intelligent use of Isopathy … in the past cases I would have been frustrated with and perhaps given up on, have been solved using these methods.