Volume 108 Number 2
AJHM Summer2015 81
Book Review
doctoring,’ a term Dr. Moskowitz adopts to describe the
sort of effective, unassuming, real-life doctoring all good
homeopaths engage in (excepting over-night home visits),
and to which he alludes in his review of Karl Robinson’s
recent book,
Small Doses, Big Results
:
“That’s the best part of all: what we get is not simply
the technical aspect, the nuts and bolts of finding the
remedy, but the real-life context in which the need for it
came about. This is what I like to call ‘plain doctoring,’
at its best.”
The book is rife with examples of Dr. Moskowitz’s own
plain doctoring. Many of the cases would be excellent as
teaching cases. One that pops to mind is the
Cantharis
case of ulcerative colitis on page 97—a brilliant prescrip-
tion, in my opinion, though regretfully not explained in a
way that would make this and other case histories like it
far more educational. Nonetheless, my reading of the case
prompted me to refer immediately to the materia medica
where, other than the intense inflammation of the rectum
present in this case, there seemed little to base the prescrip-
tion on other than the mental state of the patient, which
was striking and consisted of both a strong sexuality and a
fiery temperament prone to the occasional outburst of rage
in which she had “picked fights with men twice her size.”
I suspect an additional piece of information that helped
confirm the remedy was her great love for elephants, love
for animals being a characteristic of
Cantharis
according to
Sanakaran (
Soul of Remedies
).
One minor issue I have relates to Moskowitz’s admit-
tedly thought-provoking, if unconvincing, article entitled
“Vague, Long-Term Diagnosis: The Nocebo Effect,” in
which he hypothesizes that a nocebo effect (in this case
meant to imply a possibly pathogenetic effect of a patient’s
ailment being labeled with a worrisome diagnosis; such
as, hypertension) can have a harmful and ‘sometimes cata-
strophic’ effect on a patient’s health. While all physicians
should give thoughtful consideration to the impact of a
diagnosis on the patient’s emotional well-being, such that
delivery of such news should be made in the most delicate
and sensitive manner, it is far from apparent, and as Dr.
Moskowitz himself admits, unprovable that said diagnosis
alone can negatively affect a patient’s health. Thus, while
the speculation itself is interesting, the overall impression
of the article I was left with, given that no firm evidence
was submitted to bolster his concern, was that it represent-
ed little more than a bit of conjecture, but, I must admit,
speculation of the highest order and engaged in with the
best of motives.
The book reviews contained herein are exceptional, the
best I have yet encountered in the homeopathic literature,
and offer broad, expansive treatments of not only the books,
but often the context of the work in a larger sense, as well
as choice biographical details about the authors. His re-
views often contain an intriguing personal intimacy seldom
encountered in such works, and reflect a very logical mind,
one quick to appreciate all that’s good about a book, but
also keenly aware of any shortcomings and constructively
expressive of same. Overall, I found his critiques gentle
and always couched in an appreciation of the authors’ ef-
forts.
His review of George Vithoulkas’s
Medicine for the
New Man
provides an example of Dr. Moskowitz’s habit
of occasionally lacing his learned considerations with col-
loquialisms that both surprise and delight. Commenting on
what he perceived to be Vithoulkas’s undocumented and
questionable assumption that allopathic drug use in devel-
oped countries accounted for the increased suicide rate in
those countries, he writes:
“Well, it’s
possible
, I’ll allow, but I’m afraid that this
particular
non sequitur
is too blatant to persuade even a
dyed-in-the-wool homeopath like me, let alone those red-
necks and yahoos he seems to have in mind for his main
audience.”
The series of obituaries of major figures in contem-
porary homeopathy contained in the book are tours de
force—again thoughtful, thorough, contextual and deeply
personal. The personal intimacies he shares of his rela-
tionships with some of these important persons add an
emotional poignancy and make for engrossing reading. A
reading of his collected obituaries is much akin to reading a
book of homeopathic history and not to be missed.
And speaking of history, Dr. Moskowitz concludes with
a chapter entitled “Historical Development,” written in
2001. This brief chapter begins with a brief description of
Hahnemann’s achievements and legacy, including mention
of the seeds he helped sew that sprouted into some of the
tangential branches of homeopathy, much to his disapprov-
al. The expansion and trials of homeopathy in the United
States are succinctly described; then the status of homeopa-
thy abroad is neatly covered. Finally, he quite thoroughly,
though briefly, details the varied methods and offshoots of
homeopathy—many of which will undoubtedly leave the
skeptical, if not simply objective, reader scratching their
head at the vagaries of such practices as dowsing and radi-
onics. Nonetheless, it makes for very interesting reading
and is sure to fascinate those unfamiliar with the far-flung
varieties of healing spawned by Hahnemann’s invaluable
invention.
All considered,
More Doctoring
is a pleasure to read and
a valuable trove of information. I recommend it highly.
About the Author: George Guess, MD, DHt, practices
homeopathy in Crozet, Virginia. (Charlottesville area) He
is the previous Editor of the American Journal of Homeo-
pathic Medicine and Vice-President of the American Board
of Homeotherapeutics.
