Vol. 23 No. 1 February 2003

There is a subject for discussion that is so divisive it is rarely raised; but the most recent monthly meeting of the Homœopathic Society was focused on that question – “What is classical homœopathy?” I confess that I held the floor on the subject as it is a matter dear to my heart; few things disturb me as much as contact with a person or institution professing to practise or teach classical homœopathy but with no clear grasp of the meaning of the expression.It means to me prescribing according to the principles set out in Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon of the Medicinal Art. We do not have to argue that classical means imitating the potencies, dosages, etc, used by Hahnemann – the key point is that classical homœopaths cling to his principles.

The prime principles that must be adhered to are:

Giving the single remedy – and by implication a proven one or one with sound logic behind its choice.
Giving only the dosage of the medicine to initiate a cure – implying considering the unique character of each individual case of the disease.
Prescribing according to the principle of similars – considering first causality and then the epitome, the sum, of that case of disease, and matching this to a known symptom picture found by provings. (Prescribing on normal appearance and state of mind and emotion is not classical – classical only takes note of changes from the normal associated with altered states of health.)
It opens the door to heated debate to say that the method of Kent, or rather what today is held to be the method of Kent, is not classical because it is characterised by prescribing on the patient’s usual mental and emotional make-up; similarly the practice of prescribing a remedy in 200c or higher for almost every month of a child’s life from birth to 20 months with the intention it prevent the common diseases of childhood does not strike me as a practice compatible with the label “classical” – or even to be countenanced by someone professing to be a classical homœopath.

More of this in a future issue; contributions are invited.

Bruce Barwell