Basic HTML Version
Volume 106 Number 2
74 AJHM Summer 2013
Douglas Falkner, MD, MHom
Objective Observation and Homeopathic Practice
Homeopathic Philosophy
F
or decades, homeopathy has been undergoing a kind
of renaissance, in which homeopathic academicians
are attempting to clarify and bring order to the complexity
of modern homeopathy. Refining and building on Hahn-
emann’s teachings, some are advancing new systems and
methods. Many have been motivated to provide ground-
ing in response to the ever-expanding pool of information
daily entering into homeopathic databases. Information-
overload has long since been a reality. Classifications and
groupings of remedies according to new theoretical frame-
works have become the contemporary norm, though no
universal agreement has yet been reached. These innova-
tions, new methods, and new understandings are quickly
making their way into practitioner training programs.
The intent of these modern pioneers is undoubtedly to
further the science of homeopathy, and make it easier to
learn and apply. But if you speak with students the world
over there is widespread concern, as their years of train-
ing often do not lead to high-level clinical proficiency and
consistent results in practice. A cursory review of student
performance in current seminars and training programs re-
veals some surprising facts. At many homeopathic schools
or seminars where live cases (or video cases for that mat-
ter) are presented, there is not only a curious lack of con-
sensus over which remedy best fits the case, but also wide
disagreement as to potency selection and case management
issues. Even more disconcerting, one often discovers that
a high percentage of live cases seen in follow-up will have
not responded particularly well to the remedy chosen by
the instructor. The student’s big complaint: they still can’t
find the simillimum after many hours and many dollars
spent on courses.
In our training, we all want to be prepared not only to
succeed in the majority of cases, but to do so with enjoy-
ment, satisfaction, and, even the thrill of wonderment and
awe. When I interview homeopathic students from far and
wide, to ascertain whether the promise of true proficiency
in practice is actually being delivered by our programs ‒
which, by the way, is certainly widely accomplished in
conventional medical training‒ it seems we are missing
the mark. By honestly examining the success rates in the
private practices of our homeopathic graduates, it is rare to
find that they are achieving a high percentage of long-term
cures (meaning at least 80% or higher). Most practitioners,
when carefully evaluated, are finding the curative remedy
inconsistently, even after many return visits. Frustrated by
what feels like lackluster results, students and practitioners
are drawn to study more and study harder. But in the end,
this “go harder and longer” strategy yields diminishing
returns.
I believe that superb, high-percentage, positive results
are indeed possible, and without the need of devising in-
tricate systems, methodologies, and categorizations of our
materia medica. What is needed for training and eventu-
ally mastering homeopathy is not more, but actually less.
Filling our minds with copious amounts of information,
diverse and extensive strategies in case observation and
analysis, and thicker and thicker layers of materia medica
is not what will lead us to the great goal of homeopathy.
Homeopathy is a vitalistic medical system. While many
of the basic principles and methodologies of homeopathy
rest on a solid scientific foundation, a vitalistic medicine,
involving living human beings, will forever and invariably
remain a discipline requiring the application of both sci-
ence and art. Laboratory science does not concern itself
with immeasurable things, and human experience will
always contain aspects that are inherently immeasurable.
Though the physical human body is fully accessible to
scientific inquiry, description, and measurement, the hu-
man soul is not. Because we human beings are an amalgam
of body and spirit, we defy absolute scientific reduction-
ism. According to homeopathic doctrine, the major cause
of human disease is rooted in a disturbance of the spirit,
what Hahnemann referred to as the “vital force.” The
fundamental nature of such dynamic disturbances defies
pure scientific analysis. The effects can be observed and
cognized, but the source itself cannot be measured as far
as we know.
To cure disease states dynamically at the level of the
source, we must learn to correctly identify those hallmarks
of observable signs and symptoms that result from these
spiritual disturbances. To achieve this, one must acquire
the skill of objective observation. For objective observa-
tion, more than a keen mind is required. To be reliable,
such observation involves participation of the heart as well.
Essentially, both faculties of perception, the mind with the
heart, need to be honed and integrated for mastery in ho-
meopathy. In this context, training competent homeopaths