2006 February

Editorial February 2006

by Jan Scholten
We are happy to have the second edition of Interhomeopathy. Many people were delighted with the first one, which gives us inspiration to go on. Already many homeopaths have sent in articles and all homeopaths are welcome to do the same.

The website has been updated and bugs have been removed and becoming a member is functioning well now.

In this issue we have the theme of constitutional treatment. This is one of the confusing topics in homeopathy. The word constitution means the inborn physical make up of a person. So "constitutional treatment" means prescribing on that physical make-up.
In time though other meanings became attached to "constitutional” prescribing.

The one remedy?
The first idea was that every person has one and only one constitutional remedy, which remains the same for his whole life and can cure all his problems.
In practice this is not working out very well, as is shown in the articles of Ai-Ling Makewell. In many cases more than one remedy is needed. Many times the objection is made that there will be a better remedy that covers the ones that were given, but that's quite hypothetical.

Constitutional remedies?
A second idea that developed in homeopathy is that some remedies are constitutional and others are more superficial oracute. This idea is very often entangled with the idea of the "polycrest", some 50 remedies that are very often prescribed and are the best represented in the repertories. The polycrests were considered the "constitutional remedies" and the other remedies were seen as acutes.
This idea is also in contradiction with reality. Many so called "small" or "acute" remedies have given very deep, "constitutional" cures. The polycrest on the other hand are often prescribed as superficial or acute remedies.
One can better talk of constitutional prescriptions instead of constitutional remedies. Remedies in themselves are not constitutional. The situation in which these remedies are prescribed can be constitutional or more superficial. It is the way in which they are curative for the individual that makes them constitutional remedies or not.
Having a better understanding of “constitutional treatment VS constitutional remedies” allows us to be more open minded to possibilities. When we do not look at remedies or courses of treatment dogmatically we can then achieve better success.

Categories: Editorials
Keywords: Constitution


Write a comment

  • Required fields are marked with *.

Posts: 10
Reply #6 on : Mon October 16, 2006, 03:02:37
It seems that the author of previous posting is confused about the term "Constitution" and "Constitutional treatment" and no hiding behind lectures of other homeopaths helps her to understand this. Her quote "Hering’s Law of Direction of Cure. This includes improvement in miasmatic expression which is parallel to Hering’s Law." only confirms that as it has nothing to do with the whole idea of branding patients with an imaginary constitution. And if there is a constitution - than it is a physiological state - why to treat it? Hahnemann's original ideas do not mention any "constitution" to say nothing about "constitutional treatment." Who is than confused "doctorleela?"

Posts: 10
Reply #5 on : Sun October 15, 2006, 11:27:12

A distinct homogeneous yet characteristic totality is expressed through presenting Symptoms and Concomitants (functional and structural) with an individualized response to various environmental factors known as Modalities. This is expressed at all levels: Body, Mind and Spirit. This homogeneous expression for adaptive balance or homeostasis is what we define as the CONSTITUTION of an individual.

The remedy that encompasses the diseased state of this constitutional expression at all levels, body, mind, and spirit, is what is termed "constitutional remedy". It necessarily coincides with the miasmatic expression of the individual.

We need to note here that earlier concepts of "constitution" can be found in David Little's articles " Hahnemann on Constitution and Temperaments" on his website http://www.simillimum.com/

Posts: 10
Reply #4 on : Sun October 15, 2006, 11:23:55
An individual consists of a psycho-biological apparatus (biological intelligence, intellect, emotion, spirit) involved in the constant struggle to maintain homeostasis. The quality of haemostasis is expressive of the individual’s biological, emotional, and spiritual needs.This psycho-biological apparatus (the human body) evolves in accordance with a codified genetic plan that unfolds progressively, in response to environmental factors, as each individual ages. Based on the immune system or the Psycho-Neuro-Immuno-Endocrine axis, the individual has the potential to survive adverse conditions and reach an adaptive balance which allows survival. This struggle is expressed in external physical signs and symptoms as well as mental symptoms. The homeopathic physician is concerned with understanding the characteristic individuality of this expression in order to find the simillimum, ie the single remedy which is matched to the presenting picture of disease symptoms in the patient.

Posts: 10
Reply #3 on : Sun October 15, 2006, 11:20:14
The above post is an indication of one more homeopath who is confused about the term "Consitutional" and makes assumptions about what he does not understand.

Here is an excerpt from an article that is based on another paper from the Dhawle's symposium. It gives an idea of how the Syposium uses the term Constitutional to indicate the
"Chronic Similimum". Since this post is too long it is in 2 posts:


Even homeopaths who treat according to the concept of the so-called "constitutional remedy" may remain confused about what exactly defines this remedy. Many haven't a clue or have only a very vague concept; others consider the “constitutional remedy” to be the indicated chronic remedy.

It would be helpful at this stage to define the term “constitution” from a miasmatic point of view. This will clarify what we mean, speaking in terms of the concept of time-expression, when we use the term “constitutional” to define a chronic simillimum.


Posts: 10
Reply #2 on : Sun October 15, 2006, 10:30:26
Constitutional treatment method is a deviation from Hahnemann's original teaching. It is based on the presumption that there are certain constitutional types (Sulphur, Sepia, etc.) which is not supported anywhere by Hahnemann in his writings. It resembles the outdated idea of four human types - melancholic, choleric, sanguinic, phlegmatic - or the phrenology determinig the character from the shape of the skull. Constitutional treatment has been invented by homeopaths to make it easy to deal with the symptoms - instead of analyzing the synptoms to shove them into a group of imaginary entities. It should be abhorrent to any true homeopath!

Posts: 10
Reply #1 on : Thu March 23, 2006, 03:53:23
Dear Ian,
A very interesting website - thank you!

I think it is possible to have a single constitutional (C) remedy. But it depends on the amount of suppression and deviation in the history.
It also depends on the fundamental miasm (inherited , acquired) which allows deviations away from the basic C make up.

My experience is that this C remedy is found easily in people with predominantly Psoric miasm, and in Children without a high miasmatic "load" of disease.

I agree with your observations in the editorial, but the idea of a single C remedy is not a mistake. It depends on the perception by the homeopath.

The indicated remedy is based on the predominant picture of symptoms whether the remedy is "constitutional" or not. Improvement is in the patient is along the Hering's Law of Direction of Cure. This includes improvement in miasmatic expression which is parallel to Hering's Law.

After a few accurate prescriptions, in time the C expression emerges for the C remedy.