Homoeopathy is from the beginning to the end an art of individualization.
A Homeopath has to individualize remedies and patients. However convenient it may seem to be, and however, greatly
it appeals to us, to think of our remedies in connection with disease in the treatment of which they may be
frequently called for, it must always be kept in mind that to allow our conception of Homeopathic remedies to be
limited by nosological terms will hinder us from utilizing our remedies to the fullest extent. To get the
greatest good from the materia medica a homeopath must recognize that homeopathic remedies as powerful curative agents
ready to serve us in any case no matter what the name of the disease may be or what the laboratory findings may designate.
There are three things which merit the most careful consideration of the homoeopathic practitioner - the taking of the
case, the selection of the remedy and the administration of the remedy. The relation of these three steps are so
closely intermingled, the one with the other, and the results of the one so dependent upon the care and accuracy with
which the preceding steps have been taken, that I have presumed to call them the “Homoeopaths’ Trinity.”
How to Use the Repertory ?
by Glen Irving Bidwell, M.D.
Taking the Case.
Let us consider for a moment the first division - that of taking the case. If we hope to attain even the
smallest degree of success in the curative action of our remedies we must observe this first step closely and follow
the instructions in the Organon (Secs. 83-104) carefully. If our case is indifferently taken or the wrong symptoms
recorded we surely cannot proceed with the second step. No matter what process we take to arrive at the remedy,
unless we have our case well taken we shall only have failure for our pains. Let us consider the most important step. What does it mean to take the case?
I hear many answers to this: that everyone knows how to take the case, as it is simply a matter of recording
the symptoms found in your patient. True, but what symptoms are you to look for and which do you record? I will
say with the utmost belief that less than one man in a hundred practicing Homoeopathy to-day knows how to take a case
properly. You may think that this is a pretty strong statement, but from my experience I think if any error has
been made, it is that I have placed the number too high.
Many times I have had cases sent to me for repertory analysis with page after page of symptoms found in this
patient, and out of this vast collection not one upon which a prescription could be hung, not one to differentiate
this case from hundreds of others suffering from the same disease. There is the rub. There is the stumbling block.
They all make a diagnosis and many of the cases sent to me would make fine textbook descriptions of the disease,
but is it not the disease we want to make a record of; it is the individualized diseased patient.
No man can make a homoeopathic prescription from diagnostic or pathognomonic symptoms. The whole aim of the
physician is to secure the language of nature. It is necessary to know sickness not from pathology, not from physical
diagnosis, no matter how important these branches are, but by symptoms, the language of nature.
The degree of vitality Homoeopathy enjoys in any given period will always be indexed by the methods of its
disciples and exponents,
not merely by the soundness of their teaching, but specially by the thoroughness and accuracy of their
practice. I know of no better gauge of this vitality than the interest shown in repertory work, for
the repertory is our chief instrument of precision. True, some men do some good work without the repertory,
but they also do poor work, more than they would do with it. A self-made artisan may be a very useful man
although ignorant of the theory and most advanced methods obtaining in his line of work, but he can never measure
up to the man whom education and thoroughness of method has made an expert. No such thing as infallibility
in prescribing will ever be attained, but he who uses his repertory faithfully and intelligently - and no one can do
that without equal faithfulness and intelligence in his study of the Materia Medica - will inevitably reap his reward,
in results and in that peace of mind that comes only with an approving conscience.
-James Tyler Kent.
The repertory was never made or intended to take the place of the materia medica; I cannot lay too great stress on the fact that it must never replace our constant study and use of the pathogenesis of our remedies, it should be used as an index to lighten the task of memory in storing the vast symptomatology of our remedies.
After the repertory has led us to the remedy which we believe covers our symptom picture, the selection of this remedy should be confirmed by reading its pathogenesis as given in one of our complete materia medicas. This not only acts as proof of the results obtained in the solving of our problems, but also acts as a check on hurried careless work and at the same time time continually increases our knowledge of materia medica.
The use of the repertory is one of the higher branches of our art and before it can be mastered the laws governing the homoeopathic treatment and cure of diseases, as given to us in the Organon and the Chronic Diseases, must be learned. Philosophy is rather like trying to explain a complicated problem of geometry to one who cannot use arithmetic, to try to teach the use of the repertory to one who does not comprehend Homoeopathic Philosophy.
That the technique of surgery is wonderful in its results when carefully applied in its proper sphere is admitted
by all physicians; that there is an equally wonderful technique of scientific Homoeopathy must also be conceded or
the reason for our being, as homoeopaths, ceases to exist. That the science of Homoeopathy is exact when applied
by the use of the repertory has been proved many times, and it will be my object today not only to demonstrate this
truth, but to try and give you an insight into the methods used, so that you may obtain accurate scientific
results easily and rapidly.
There are several complete repertories now published and the use of any one of them will be of untold aid in
finding the right remedy. When one has become familiar with their arrangement all the time that is really consumed
is in the taking of the case.
When you have decided on the repertory you wish to use, confine yourself to that one and completely master its arrangement, for the most rapid
work and the best results can only be obtained by the close study and working knowledge of one. Personally, I can do the best and most rapid
work with Kent’s great work, and my demonstration here will be taken from Kent’s Repertory. Before trying to use the repertory in your
work read the headings of the general rubrics from beginning to end and thus familiarize yourself with the arrangement
of the work, so that no time will be lost in looking for your symptoms. Only by this and by constant use, can the repertory be a companion and helper.
How to Find the Remedy ?
Having thus far outlined, in a brief way, the homoeopathic philosophy of the first division of our Trinity,
we will pass to the second angle, that of finding the homoeopathically indicated remedy.
We believe that Homoeopathy is applicable to every curable case; the great thing is to know how to find and apply
it.
If we had nothing but the mass of symptoms as recorded in the materia medica to help in the search for the single
remedy which would cover the totality of a complicated chronic case, it would indeed be a gigantic task, and the
excuse of many practitioners that they do not have the time to practice straight Homoeopathy would be plausible,
but we have in the repertory a valuable help along this line, so that with practice and study the remedy may be found
with amazing rapidity.
