Download PDF
Homeopathy 2002; 91(03): 150-155
DOI: 10.1054/homp.2002.0026
Original Paper
Copyright ©The Faculty of Homeopathy 2002

Selection of potencies by medical and non-medical homeopaths: a survey

M Deroukakis
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Received08 February 2002
revised25 February 2002

accepted25 March 2002

Publication Date:
27 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the differences between medical and non-medical practitioners with regard to the selection of potency. Design: Postal survey to medical homoeopaths belonging to the Faculty of Homoeopathy, and to non-medical homoeopaths, members of the Society of Homoeopaths. Participants: One hundred medical homoeopaths and 100 non-medical homoeopaths. Results: Homeopaths from both groups agreed on certain fundamental concepts. Medical and non-medical homoeopaths differ in the prescription of potency most significantly on greater use of LM potencies and greater consideration of pathology by non-medical homeopaths and greater use of a lower potency in the case of an aggravation in medical homeopaths. Conclusions: Despite the differences in education of medical and non-medical homeopaths, there appears to be general agreement on the philosophical aspects of potency prescription.

Keywords

potency selection - medical and professional homoeopaths - high and low potencies - classical homoeopathy - education in homoeopathy
 

  • References

  • 1 Kennedy CO. The question of potency. Br Hom J 1988; 77: 47-50.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Withers RJ. Toward a psychology of homoeopathy and the high potencies. Br Hom J 1975; 17: 133-151.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kurz C. The last word in homoeopathic posology. Hom Links 1966; 9: 186-188.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lippe AD. On the repetition of the dose. Med Adv 1888: 343-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 De Schepper L. LM potencies: one of the hidden treasures of the sixth edition of the Organon. Br Hom J 1999; 88: 128-134.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Coulter H. Divided Legacy, Vol 3. Washington: McGrath Publishing Company; 1973
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Shepherd D. The Magic of the Minimum Dose. Essex: CW Daniel Company Ltd; 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Close S. The Genius of Homoeopathy. New Dehli: B. Jain Publishers; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Fulder SJ, Mulder RE. Complementary medicine in the United Kingdom: patients, practitioners and consultations. Lancet 1985; 2: 542-545.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mills, Budd, Professional Organisation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United Kingdom 2000, University of Exeter, UK, Centre of Complementary Health Studies.
    PubMed
  • 11 May C, Sirur D. Art, science and placebo: incorporating homoeopathy into general practice. Sociol Health Illness 1998; 20: 168-190.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hughes-Games J, Lockie A. Kennedy. Non-medically qualified practitioners of homoeopathy: a statement from the Faculty of Homoeopathy. Br Hom J 1993; 82: 200-203.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dempsey T. Swayne. Thinking what we are doing. Br Hom J 1990; 79: 82-89.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wood M. The Magical Staff: The Vitalist Tradition in Western Medicine. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Fordham B. Principles or practice? An exploration of the role of theory in homoeopathy. Stanley Thomas Publications Ltd: Cheltenham; The Sceptical Holist. 1998
    Google Scholar