As the popularity of homeopathy grows globally, it is important that we retain the essence of the classical system as given to us by Samuel Hahnemann. Unfortunately, today, too many practitioners use ‘shortcuts’, either because they have not been exposed to the correct approach or because homeopaths, just like everyone else, are looking for a quick-fix!
Let us not fall prey to charlatans and stick to the straight and narrow, for that is the only way we can be true healers. It is the only way we can be honest to our patients and restore them to good health.
This does not mean case taking has to be a long-drawn, tedious and time-consuming process – not even the Eight-Step Method (at the core of which is the concept of Key Sensitivity discussed in Step 6), which I find unusually accurate and precise. Practitioners that use this method will find that case taking is reduced to less than 60 minutes.
The reason this method is so quick and accurate is the practitioner has a solid framework against which to weigh the information provided by the patient. The practitioner also knows exactly what he or she is looking for – the patient’s Key Sensitivity.
In this document, I have outlined the Eight Steps we will be studying in detail. Note: These are not sequential steps. They are more like parameters the practitioner uses to constantly distil the information gleaned during case taking.
What is the best way to truly understand your patient? What do you look for in the case? How do you know what is relevant and what is not? How long does it take to find relevant clues? What do you do with them? And where do practitioners falter and go wrong?
Case taking provides a detailed and thorough understanding of the patient. As you proceed, there is usually a rush of information. Sometimes, the details tumble out; at other times, they have to be coaxed out; and at still other times, something will suddenly leap out at you. And in that instant, you may even find the right remedy! I call this the ‘Eureka moment’. But how do you weigh the relevance of these clues so that they are not swept away along with the chaff?
The secret to accurate prescribing is knowing what is relevant and useful and what is not. Thus, as case taking proceeds, the homeopath is constantly evaluating; making linkages and connections; correlating; corroborating; checking, cross-checking and re-checking information. In other words, as you take the patient’s history, you’re constantly joining the dots.
It is essentially a process where the practitioner is constantly distilling information, where the unnecessary and irrelevant are continuously set aside before you arrive ‘pure’ and accurate rubrics.
I use a three-in-one approach comprising three broad parameters to collate clues and find the all-important pattern they weave: Miasmatic Theory, Kingdom Theory and Key Sensitivity.
So, where do you start? Well, prescribing, by default, implies that you arrive at a set of rubrics. Many homeopaths, perhaps for want of adequate training, arrive at rubrics almost mathematically. They take into account the patient’s mentals and physicals, add thermals and thirst to them, and then scour the Materia Medica for a possible match. This is simply not good enough! No, it doesn’t add up. I call this the ‘sin of oversimplification’. I cannot stress enough that the formulaic approach to arriving at rubrics, even against a Miasmatic matrix, usually fails to lead you to the similimum.
There are three reasons why my Eight-Step approach never fails. One, the beauty of this method is that it provides multiple entry points to every case and the practitioner is not dependent on the verbal aspect of case taking. So remember – and this is very important – the entry point to a case may be found anywhere between Step 1 and 8.
Second, this approach yields extremely nuanced rubrics, which are the result of constantly distilling the information provided by the patient during case taking. With so many checks and balances, there can be no room for error. It is water-tight.
The third reason this method is very effective is that it yields answers to the most challenging cases – cases where the patient either cannot speak, is constitutionally dull and sluggish; uncooperative; or determined to camouflage his thought processes and sensitive issues.
Once you embrace the Eight-Step approach, the picture typically begins to take shape as you progress from Step 1 to 8. But that is a textbook formula and human nature is mischievous. It loves to upset the applecart! The good news is that these Eight Steps provide an entry to a case from almost any angle.
If you follow these steps meticulously and rigorously, you must arrive at rubrics at every stage. Does that mean you end up with eight sets of rubrics? Clasically, yes. Since each step represents an entry point to the case from a different angle, each set of rubrics will be different from the others – but all of them should point to the same remedy. In other words, each set of rubrics dovetails with and correlates with each of the others. Diagrammatically, each set of rubrics should radiate outwards to each of the other seven entry points.
Naturally, there’s a LOT of correlating, corroborating and distilling to be done. The practitioner is thus constantly processing the case actively rather than passively gathering data. I promise you this – the Eight-Step approach is water-tight..
