Homeopathic Prescribing Approaches
Every great homeopath has approached case-taking and prescribing in a different way.
Kent focused deeply on the mind and emotional state of the patient.
Bönninghausen gave importance to modalities and concomitant symptoms.
C. M. Boger focused strongly on pathology and the totality of symptoms.
George Vithoulkas emphasised classical constitutional prescribing.
Dr. M. L. Sehgal developed the Revolutionary Sehgal Method based mainly on mental rubrics.
Dr. Rajan Sankaran introduced the Sensation Method, dreams, miasms and the understanding of the patient’s inner pattern.
The School of Homeopathy UK developed its own artistic and patient-centred approach.
Many physicians also worked through keynote prescribing, clinical prescribing, constitutional prescribing, pathological prescribing, miasmatic prescribing and the Calcutta method.
These approaches were never created to make us narrow-minded.
They were developed to broaden our understanding of homeopathy and help us look at a case from different angles.
Sometimes a case is solved through a mental symptom.
Sometimes the pathology clearly points towards the remedy.
Sometimes a strange, rare and peculiar symptom becomes the key.
At other times, a concomitant symptom or a well-selected rubric solves the case.
As homeopaths, we must learn how to think flexibly.
If one approach does not work, we should ask ourselves:
- What is characteristic in this case?
- What is the centre of the disturbance?
- Which symptoms are guiding me?
- Which method of prescribing is most suitable here?
In the early years of my practice, I was also very strict in my thinking.
Like many students of homeopathy, I believed there was only one correct way to practise.
After studying the teachings of my Guru George Vithoulkas, I felt that constitutional classical prescribing was the complete answer.
Later, I studied the Sensation Method, periodic table analysis, dream analysis and the work of Rajan Sankaran and the School of Homeopathy UK.
Although I respected these systems deeply, I realised they did not completely suit my own style of practice.
Then I studied the Sehgal Method thoroughly and developed a strong understanding of rubrics and repertorisation.
Again, I felt I had finally found the best system.
But as clinical experience grows, failures also teach us important lessons.
With time, I realised that no single method is complete on its own.
Every method has value.
Each system helps us understand the patient from a different perspective.
These methods are made to guide us, not to imprison us.
I restarted my practice on 14 August 2006 in Bahria Town, Lahore – Pakistan.
Over nearly twenty years of practice, I have realised that it is my duty to understand every major approach to prescribing.
A good homeopath should study:
- Classical prescribing
- Constitutional prescribing
- Keynote prescribing
- Clinical prescribing
- Pathological prescribing
- Miasmatic prescribing
- Bönninghausen method
- Boger method
- Kentian method
- Sehgal method
- Sankaran Sensation Method
- Vithoulkas classical approach
- Calcutta method
- Totality-based prescribing
- Rubric-based prescribing
- Concomitant prescribing
You may naturally feel stronger in one particular system, and that is perfectly fine.
Every physician develops a personal style with experience.
My personal favourite approach is to remain open-minded and combine knowledge from all schools of homeopathy whenever needed for the patient.
The more sincerely we seek knowledge, the better our results become.
The moment we become fixed in our thinking and start believing, “Only my method is correct,” our growth stops.
True learning in homeopathy begins when we stay humble, observant and willing to learn from every system and every patient.
