| · Department of Health
· Work pressures (2)
· Homoeopathy (2)
· Controlled drugs
· Safety
· Oxygen service
· Compliance aids
· Needle exchange
· Paracetamol
· Smoking cessation
· The profession (2)
· Retention fees (4)
· The Society (2)
· Public image
Letters to the Editor
|
Homoeopathy
Failing to understand
From Mr K. R. Nathwani, MRPharmS
It is impressive that Richard
Schmidt (PJ, 19 August, p220) has done
a lot of research on the subject of homoeopathic treatment of malaria
on the internet. What he fails to understand is the homoeopathic philosophy
and he really should read the ‘Organon of medicine’ by Samuel
Hahnemann from cover to cover rather than read snap-shots of excerpts
on various internet sources.
The reason why homoeopaths do not recommend china officinalis for the
treatment of malaria is because homoeopathic treatment is based on “totality
of symptoms”, ie, taking into consideration of all the symptoms
of mental, emotional and physical pertaining to the individual, and matched
with the corresponding remedy. It is an individualised or holistic way
of prescribing, not a generalised way, as in allopathic prescribing.
Therefore, it is not a correct way of prescribing by recommending one
remedy for all with the same disease since everyone’s constitution
is different.
There are many remedies proven to be useful in the treatment of malaria,
china officinalis is just one of them, which may be appropriate in some
patients and not in others. Dr Schmidt needs to read and understand the
homoeopathic philosophy before making remarks such as “Hahnemann’s
house of homoeopathy has been built on an unsound foundation”.
If he reads the history on Dr Hahnemann, he will discover that Hahnemann’s
doctrine is based on sound evidence, experience and clinical observations
before he included his treatise in the form of aphorisms in his ‘Organon
of medicine’, and then included the findings of a remedy in the ‘Materia
Medica’. Nothing in ‘Organon’ is based on assumption
or theory. The principles of homoeopathy are the same as they were 250
years ago.
Lastly, while touring India, I have successfully used three different
remedies for the treatment of malaria on three different children — one
of these remedies was china officinalis.
Kamal Nathwani
Stanmore, Middlesex
Bogged down
From Dr L. R. Kayne, MRPharmS
In response to Richard
Schmidt (PJ, 19 August, p220), I would
note that my original
letter (PJ, 5 August, p160) was in fact in reference
to a July
press release now available on the Faculty of Homeopathy’s website and
not only the 2005 Health Protection Agency statement that Dr Schmidt quoted.
In the remainder of his letter and in his haste to denigrate homoeopathy
once again, I fear Dr Schmidt became bogged down in his own verbosity.
In fact it is quite simple. All health care professionals using homoeopathy
in their practice know that it is not appropriate for all conditions. The
ultra-dilute dose levels involved mean that it cannot deal with disease
caused by parasites or bacterial organisms in the same rapid and effective
manner that orthodox drugs can. China officinalis is one of a number of
homoeopathic medicines that may assist in relieving some symptoms associated
with malaria but there is no convincing evidence — scientific or
observational — that homoeopathy alone can cure or prevent the disease.
Do not believe everything you read on the internet.
Lee Kayne
Glasgow |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal