Today (Wednesday 25th July) was one of our hardest working days। Wednesdays usually are as they are the days we do home visits। Home visits are hard work for several reasons. They require us driving over very rough and/or sandy roads and we often get stuck in the sand; Consultations are often taken outside patients houses in the yard in the heat of the sun; We see very weak and often bedridden patients; We see very severe physical pathology. On the plus side we meet very strong people.
The patients’ strength makes their condition all the more poignant as we meet very strong people who are imprisoned in their own bodies through weakness. You can hear their strength in their voices, see it in their eyes or hear it in their words and it makes them appear in a very pitiful and tortured state as they cannot fend for themselves or engage with the world at large any more.
Seeing this strength although saddening to see imprisoned in a bed makes me optimistic that the patient will in time recover and this week I’ve seen this strength win through.
Today we were very happy to see three of our patients who were bedridden a week ago sitting outside in the sun. One was the albino patient I described in an earlier posting. Her first words when we met her were ‘I’m well!’. Her ulcers were clearly healing and she was very pleased to show us the progress they were making whereas at our previous visit shewas very weak and in a lot of pain and her ulcers were open wounds.
Our second patient had been in bed for months with diarrhoea and vomiting. Today she was sitting in her yard in the shade of a tree, proud to tell us that she could walk to her outhouse and back. Next time, she told us ‘You’ll see me cooking’.
Our third patient had also had constant diarrhoea which was now improved. Like the other patients she was sitting in her yard in the sun with her mother, her daughter and her grandchildren who were all playing at ‘foreigners in a decrepit pick-up stuck in the sand’.
I’m not describing people rising from the dead here. In all three cases there is a long way to go before they are as healthy as they’d like to be but the fact that they are out of bed, have more physical comfort and energy than before and doing things they enjoy is a big step for them on the road to recovery.
I’m pleased to say that many of the patients I am seeing now are improving or are returning to homoeopathy after a long time of being well. I’m not saying that this is all down to my sudden appearance on the scene. It is more due to the strength which the patients themselves posess and the many other homoeopaths who have added their skill to the proces of recovery.
Showing posts with label Triad Method. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Triad Method. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Flexibility of The Triad Method.
It’s when there is a change in symptoms rather than an improvement after the first prescription that one can see the flexibility of the triad method. An easy example togive is the first case at a subsequent follow up.
***The patient did well on their first and second prescriptions but they have returned. Their joint pains have returned but they find that they are now worse at the end of the day when they are at rest. They have to keep moving to keep the pains at bay. They began again around the time their children were threatened with expulsion from school because they were late with school fees (Everyone has to pay school fees in Botswana whether government or private school). The patient became worried for their children's future and took on extra work. Nothing much else worries them aside from their families welfare and their responsibilities.
In this case the aetiology of the joint pains and their characteristic of being worse for rest and better for continued motion indicates not Bryonia but Rhus Tox. The patients underlying constitution and background remain unchanged so far so the prescription can be repeated with the Bryonia, the initial remedy for the patients joint symptoms being changed for Rhus. Tox. Calc and Carc can be repeated as before.
***The patient did well on their first and second prescriptions but they have returned. Their joint pains have returned but they find that they are now worse at the end of the day when they are at rest. They have to keep moving to keep the pains at bay. They began again around the time their children were threatened with expulsion from school because they were late with school fees (Everyone has to pay school fees in Botswana whether government or private school). The patient became worried for their children's future and took on extra work. Nothing much else worries them aside from their families welfare and their responsibilities.
In this case the aetiology of the joint pains and their characteristic of being worse for rest and better for continued motion indicates not Bryonia but Rhus Tox. The patients underlying constitution and background remain unchanged so far so the prescription can be repeated with the Bryonia, the initial remedy for the patients joint symptoms being changed for Rhus. Tox. Calc and Carc can be repeated as before.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Trouble With Triad
The Triad Method is a little bit of a problem for me from the point of view of homoeopathic philosophy and here’s why. I’m classically trained so the basic prescribing method I am familiar with is one appropriate remedy, watch and wait. Whether prescribing for an acute or chronic case. Then repeat or change the remedy according to the response.
In the 6 months before I left for Botswana I’d been familiarising myself with Eizayager’s layers method and so when I was introduced to the Triad Method at my induction for the project it sounded like a reasonable way of going about things. In theory, that is.
In practice it is a lot different. You’ll see in the last post I added (below this one) I’ve given myself a few criteria to use to help me prescribe using the Triad Method, and I’ll use the method because I agreed to do so. Thus, it is possible to rationalise to oneself how to use the triad method. The most difficult thing I am finding in practice at the moment is working out which part of the prescription has worked.
My understanding of the practice of homoeopathy is that you don’t prescribe for separate parts of the case and this is what it feels like is being done here at the project. Having said that, I would feel more at ease with this prescribing method if we were prescribing only two remedies, one for the appropriate totality of symptoms and one nosode. The third remedy seems to me to be superfluous and I feel I’m prescribing it simply to cover bases. This is a scary thing to admit as people are coming to us for help and will surely expect us to know what we are doing.
The other source of confusion about this method is having a remedy for the ‘acute layer’. So far noone I have seen has presented with acute symptoms, either an acute exacerbation of a chronic condition or an opportunistic infection, acute miasm, etc. etc. so merely the name of this layer causes me confusion too.
As I’m sure you can see, I’m pretty confused about this but trying to deal with the confusion by using reflective practice and supervision. It helps me to think things through by writing them down and hopefully by the time I’m further through my stay here I’ll have resolved my questions about the method. I also hope that what I write is being read by other homoeopaths and I’m able to share my experience with them.
The major headache for me at present, after having taken the case and found a third remedy which I feel I can justify within the case is which part of the previous prescription has worked. Patrly this is due to summary sheets only having recently been introduced. 99% of cases have to be read through before the consultations and the key points of the case drawn together while doing this. This is quite a task as the notes are handwritten by several successive homoeopaths. You’ll see throughout the histories that some prescriptions work very well and the next prescription is changed for no apparent reason. Why? I think part of this is due to different practitioners from different backgrounds seeing different things in a case and responding the best way they can see. Another reasonn seems to be practitioners departing from the protocols that have been set by the project. Yet, I still ask myself, why wasn’t the last prescription which brought about a positive change for the patient repeated?
I’ll keep you all posted about how my understanding of the method and it’s application develops. I’m sure all the homoeopaths have been dying for me to actually get on to the subject of actually prescribing etc. The Triad Method is a little bit of a problem for me from the point of view of homoeopathic philosophy and here’s why. I’m classically trained so the basic prescribing method I am familiar with is one appropriate remedy, watch and wait. Whether prescribing for an acute or chronic case. Then repeat or change the remedy according to the response.
In the 6 months before I left for Botswana I’d been familiarising myself with Eizayager’s layers method and so when I was introduced to the Triad Method at my induction for the project it sounded like a reasonable way of going about things. In theory, that is.
In practice it is a lot different. You’ll see in the last post I added (below this one) I’ve given myself a few criteria to use to help me prescribe using the Triad Method, and I’ll use the method because I agreed to do so. Thus, it is possible to rationalise to oneself how to use the triad method. The most difficult thing I am finding in practice at the moment is working out which part of the prescription has worked.
My understanding of the practice of homoeopathy is that you don’t prescribe for separate parts of the case and this is what it feels like is being done here at the project. Having said that, I would feel more at ease with this prescribing method if we were prescribing only two remedies, one for the appropriate totality of symptoms and one nosode. The third remedy seems to me to be superfluous and I feel I’m prescribing it simply to cover bases. This is a scary thing to admit as people are coming to us for help and will surely expect us to know what we are doing.
The other source of confusion about this method is having a remedy for the ‘acute layer’. So far noone I have seen has presented with acute symptoms, either an acute exacerbation of a chronic condition or an opportunistic infection, acute miasm, etc. etc. so merely the name of this layer causes me confusion too.
As I’m sure you can see, I’m pretty confused about this but trying to deal with the confusion by using reflective practice and supervision. It helps me to think things through by writing them down and hopefully by the time I’m further through my stay here I’ll have resolved my questions about the method. I also hope that what I write is being read by other homoeopaths and I’m able to share my experience with them.
The major headache for me at present, after having taken the case and found a third remedy which I feel I can justify within the case is which part of the previous prescription has worked. Patrly this is due to summary sheets only having recently been introduced. 99% of cases have to be read through before the consultations and the key points of the case drawn together while doing this. This is quite a task as the notes are handwritten by several successive homoeopaths. You’ll see throughout the histories that some prescriptions work very well and the next prescription is changed for no apparent reason. Why? I think part of this is due to different practitioners from different backgrounds seeing different things in a case and responding the best way they can see. Another reasonn seems to be practitioners departing from the protocols that have been set by the project. Yet, I still ask myself, why wasn’t the last prescription which brought about a positive change for the patient repeated?
I’ll keep you all posted about how my understanding of the method and it’s application develops. I’m sure all the homoeopaths have been dying for me to actually get on to the subject of actually prescribing etc.
In the 6 months before I left for Botswana I’d been familiarising myself with Eizayager’s layers method and so when I was introduced to the Triad Method at my induction for the project it sounded like a reasonable way of going about things. In theory, that is.
In practice it is a lot different. You’ll see in the last post I added (below this one) I’ve given myself a few criteria to use to help me prescribe using the Triad Method, and I’ll use the method because I agreed to do so. Thus, it is possible to rationalise to oneself how to use the triad method. The most difficult thing I am finding in practice at the moment is working out which part of the prescription has worked.
My understanding of the practice of homoeopathy is that you don’t prescribe for separate parts of the case and this is what it feels like is being done here at the project. Having said that, I would feel more at ease with this prescribing method if we were prescribing only two remedies, one for the appropriate totality of symptoms and one nosode. The third remedy seems to me to be superfluous and I feel I’m prescribing it simply to cover bases. This is a scary thing to admit as people are coming to us for help and will surely expect us to know what we are doing.
The other source of confusion about this method is having a remedy for the ‘acute layer’. So far noone I have seen has presented with acute symptoms, either an acute exacerbation of a chronic condition or an opportunistic infection, acute miasm, etc. etc. so merely the name of this layer causes me confusion too.
As I’m sure you can see, I’m pretty confused about this but trying to deal with the confusion by using reflective practice and supervision. It helps me to think things through by writing them down and hopefully by the time I’m further through my stay here I’ll have resolved my questions about the method. I also hope that what I write is being read by other homoeopaths and I’m able to share my experience with them.
The major headache for me at present, after having taken the case and found a third remedy which I feel I can justify within the case is which part of the previous prescription has worked. Patrly this is due to summary sheets only having recently been introduced. 99% of cases have to be read through before the consultations and the key points of the case drawn together while doing this. This is quite a task as the notes are handwritten by several successive homoeopaths. You’ll see throughout the histories that some prescriptions work very well and the next prescription is changed for no apparent reason. Why? I think part of this is due to different practitioners from different backgrounds seeing different things in a case and responding the best way they can see. Another reasonn seems to be practitioners departing from the protocols that have been set by the project. Yet, I still ask myself, why wasn’t the last prescription which brought about a positive change for the patient repeated?
I’ll keep you all posted about how my understanding of the method and it’s application develops. I’m sure all the homoeopaths have been dying for me to actually get on to the subject of actually prescribing etc. The Triad Method is a little bit of a problem for me from the point of view of homoeopathic philosophy and here’s why. I’m classically trained so the basic prescribing method I am familiar with is one appropriate remedy, watch and wait. Whether prescribing for an acute or chronic case. Then repeat or change the remedy according to the response.
In the 6 months before I left for Botswana I’d been familiarising myself with Eizayager’s layers method and so when I was introduced to the Triad Method at my induction for the project it sounded like a reasonable way of going about things. In theory, that is.
In practice it is a lot different. You’ll see in the last post I added (below this one) I’ve given myself a few criteria to use to help me prescribe using the Triad Method, and I’ll use the method because I agreed to do so. Thus, it is possible to rationalise to oneself how to use the triad method. The most difficult thing I am finding in practice at the moment is working out which part of the prescription has worked.
My understanding of the practice of homoeopathy is that you don’t prescribe for separate parts of the case and this is what it feels like is being done here at the project. Having said that, I would feel more at ease with this prescribing method if we were prescribing only two remedies, one for the appropriate totality of symptoms and one nosode. The third remedy seems to me to be superfluous and I feel I’m prescribing it simply to cover bases. This is a scary thing to admit as people are coming to us for help and will surely expect us to know what we are doing.
The other source of confusion about this method is having a remedy for the ‘acute layer’. So far noone I have seen has presented with acute symptoms, either an acute exacerbation of a chronic condition or an opportunistic infection, acute miasm, etc. etc. so merely the name of this layer causes me confusion too.
As I’m sure you can see, I’m pretty confused about this but trying to deal with the confusion by using reflective practice and supervision. It helps me to think things through by writing them down and hopefully by the time I’m further through my stay here I’ll have resolved my questions about the method. I also hope that what I write is being read by other homoeopaths and I’m able to share my experience with them.
The major headache for me at present, after having taken the case and found a third remedy which I feel I can justify within the case is which part of the previous prescription has worked. Patrly this is due to summary sheets only having recently been introduced. 99% of cases have to be read through before the consultations and the key points of the case drawn together while doing this. This is quite a task as the notes are handwritten by several successive homoeopaths. You’ll see throughout the histories that some prescriptions work very well and the next prescription is changed for no apparent reason. Why? I think part of this is due to different practitioners from different backgrounds seeing different things in a case and responding the best way they can see. Another reasonn seems to be practitioners departing from the protocols that have been set by the project. Yet, I still ask myself, why wasn’t the last prescription which brought about a positive change for the patient repeated?
I’ll keep you all posted about how my understanding of the method and it’s application develops. I’m sure all the homoeopaths have been dying for me to actually get on to the subject of actually prescribing etc.
On another tack altogether…It’s ten past nine on a cool June’s night. Julia has, within the last hour recovered from an energy sapping cold type thing, thanks to homoeopathy and Hilary-Coffee-Shop’s thoughtfully sending Julia some Butternut Squash Soup and Carrot Cake. Julia is blasting out tunes on the Lutheran Church’s guitar which she borrowed to restring. We’ve had I’ve Been A Miner For A Heart Of Gold, Lady Darbanvilles, the song which begins Ziggy Played Guitar, and several others that went in one ear and out the other while I was typing.
So, when the working day is done we get a good opportunity to relax and re-energise like good, hard thinking, hard working, reflective homoeopaths should.
So, when the working day is done we get a good opportunity to relax and re-energise like good, hard thinking, hard working, reflective homoeopaths should.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Work Experience
Where am I now?
I'm still in Maun, of course. I'm just beginning my third week here and I've just begun taking cases on my own. Last week I was alternating with Julia. Having her there to discuss case analysis and remedies with me made things a lot easier, it felt a lot less pressurised than thinking alone.
Since I arrived we've been working at a reasonable pace and our days have been varied for one reason or another. As you'll see from the photo's, last Monday we were invited to Boseja Kgotla to explain what the project is about. Usually we are at the Lutheran Church Clinic on a Monday from 0800 - 1600 with an hour for lunch. That afternoon we could go home early as noone had come to clinic that afternoon.
Tuesday's we're at WoMen Against in the morning and seeing private patients in the afternoon. That's a very different kettle of fish altogether as we do not have to use the Maun Homoeopathy project triad method. You'll have read about that in the post above this. I'm going to try and fix it so that My postings run chronologically from oldest at the top to most recent at the bottom. It doesn't make sense, the way it is now.
Wenesdays we do home Visits for Lutheran Church Clinic Patients and Thursday's were back at the Lutheran Church Clinic all day. Friday is always varied as we go on a thrice weekly rotation to Boseja Kgotla Clinic, Maun Conselling Clinic or Sennonori, which is run by the woman who comes each week to sweep our yard and do our washing. A good example of the blurred boundaries we are always warned about!
Tell Us About The Triad
OK. The triad ought to be fairly easy for most homoeopaths to understand as it seems to be based on Eizayagers 'Layers Method'. However, rather than treating each layer of the case sepparately we prescribe concurrently. At present i'm not quite sure of how the Triad came to be used. I feel a bit of an idiot because of that. Why didn't I bother asking? Hmmm.
I'm still in Maun, of course. I'm just beginning my third week here and I've just begun taking cases on my own. Last week I was alternating with Julia. Having her there to discuss case analysis and remedies with me made things a lot easier, it felt a lot less pressurised than thinking alone.
Since I arrived we've been working at a reasonable pace and our days have been varied for one reason or another. As you'll see from the photo's, last Monday we were invited to Boseja Kgotla to explain what the project is about. Usually we are at the Lutheran Church Clinic on a Monday from 0800 - 1600 with an hour for lunch. That afternoon we could go home early as noone had come to clinic that afternoon.
Tuesday's we're at WoMen Against in the morning and seeing private patients in the afternoon. That's a very different kettle of fish altogether as we do not have to use the Maun Homoeopathy project triad method. You'll have read about that in the post above this. I'm going to try and fix it so that My postings run chronologically from oldest at the top to most recent at the bottom. It doesn't make sense, the way it is now.
Wenesdays we do home Visits for Lutheran Church Clinic Patients and Thursday's were back at the Lutheran Church Clinic all day. Friday is always varied as we go on a thrice weekly rotation to Boseja Kgotla Clinic, Maun Conselling Clinic or Sennonori, which is run by the woman who comes each week to sweep our yard and do our washing. A good example of the blurred boundaries we are always warned about!
Tell Us About The Triad
OK. The triad ought to be fairly easy for most homoeopaths to understand as it seems to be based on Eizayagers 'Layers Method'. However, rather than treating each layer of the case sepparately we prescribe concurrently. At present i'm not quite sure of how the Triad came to be used. I feel a bit of an idiot because of that. Why didn't I bother asking? Hmmm.
So, I'll tell you about what I know about the triad method so far and what my experience is of it, so far. My opinions are bound to change as I have only been here two weeks so far (today is Tuesady 26th of June) and I have not been in touch with Hilary to get an idea of how the method developed. Anyone reading this from top to botom will read my most recent insights first.
The Triad Layers
The Triad Layers are - 1) Acute; 2) Constitutional; 3) Miasmatic.
At present I'm finding this method a little unwieldy, mainly because very few people we see have acute illnesses, their symptoms are long standing. Because of this I could understand prescribing a remedy for the chronic illness and another for the miasm but having to work in a third seems to me to be a bit of a contrivance.
But, we have to prescribe this way as Hilary wants to see the results of long term Triad prescribing. Things probably wouldn't be so rigid but for characters like me turning up and saying 'I'm not prescribing like that!' and doing their own thing. Luckily for the project I am not in a rebellious mood and I am happy to follow the protocol and see where it takes me
So that I feel happpy using the Triad method I've worked out a few ways of justifying to myself why 3 remedies are being prescribed.
My idea of how to Prescribe for "Acute" Layer = 1) remedy for totality of an acute miasm or exacerbation of chronic disease; 2, As a support for acute mental emotional states if Px has chronic symptoms.
Constitutional Layer: Patterns of Health / Ill Health & Menatal Emotional Reactions.
Miasm: Can an appropriate miasmatic link be made between acute and chronic symptoms? Which miasm is most obvious in the case?
And it feels even better prescribing this way if the remedies used can be related. Still, at present I'd feel less of a headache using just one or two remedies at a time.
So that I feel happpy using the Triad method I've worked out a few ways of justifying to myself why 3 remedies are being prescribed.
My idea of how to Prescribe for "Acute" Layer = 1) remedy for totality of an acute miasm or exacerbation of chronic disease; 2, As a support for acute mental emotional states if Px has chronic symptoms.
Constitutional Layer: Patterns of Health / Ill Health & Menatal Emotional Reactions.
Miasm: Can an appropriate miasmatic link be made between acute and chronic symptoms? Which miasm is most obvious in the case?
And it feels even better prescribing this way if the remedies used can be related. Still, at present I'd feel less of a headache using just one or two remedies at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
