From the teaching centres Single or multiple medicine prescribing— a debate [*]Motion: This house believes that the single remedy is the medicine of experience
20 December 2017 (online)
The 1990s are no more a time for complacency in the furtherance of homoeopathy than were the 1790s or the 1890s. Is not the function of the study of history to gain experience and enlightenment for one’s survival in the present?
In 1790 Samuel Hahnemann demonstrated his genius and the similia principle in his Cinchona experiment. By the time he died in Paris in 1843 he had firmly established the roots of homoeopathy which we are still nurturing today. Could he have achieved more had he not been so antagonistic to his allopathic peers and the pharmacists of his day? Would George Guess have been banned from medical practice in September 1991 in his home state of North Carolina had not the infighting of his ancestors in the low potency/high potency split of the 1890s, and gradual absorption of low potency homoeopathic prescribing into allopathic medicine, brought about the decline of homoeopathy in the USA?
Surely there is no place for self congratulation on either our educational success in homoeopathy in this country, or our position in relation to non-medically qualified practitioners. George Vithoulkas, one of the greatest contributors to the philosophy, practice and teaching of homoeopathy since Kent died in 1916, believes implicitly in the single remedy prescribing of classical homoeopathy. He is not a medically qualified homoeopath.
There is an ever-increasing public interest in, and demand for homoeopathic treatment in the UK today. If we are to serve this public well in the development of homoeopathy into the twenty-first century we must
— Practise the most effective form of homoeopathy
— Produce positive scientific research incorporating the skills of our non-medically qualified colleagues, as in other branches of medicine
— Not repeat history’s mistakes by rejecting in any way, a large and active group of dedicated homoeopaths, just because they happen not to have been trained in allopathic medicine.
With these aims in mind the debate on multiple versus single remedy prescribing took place at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital on 7 July 1992.
The motion for debate was ‘This house believes that the single remedy is the medicine of experience’. The debate was chaired by Dr Peter Fisher.
At the end of the debate the audience of 60 voted 2 to 1 in favour of the single remedy being the medicine of experience.
I hope this debate will herald the beginning of a new era of the practice of better and more effective homoeopathy, and a closer and more congenial alliance with the Society of Homoeopaths in the furtherance of homoeopathy in the UK into the next century.
DR VICTORIA BLACKSTONE
☆This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details; Br Hom J 1993; 82: 137–152. DOI of original item: 10.1016/S0007-0785(05)80952-4.