Modern Homoeopathy
Monthly Newsletter December 2007
Homoeopath in Focus - Dr. Isaac Golden
Interview of
Dr. Isaac Golden
Interviewed by Dr. Pawan S. Chandak
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak :
Dear Friends, today we have with us in our Homoeopath in Focus Corner, Dr. Isaac Golden, one of Australia’s most well-known homeopaths.
Welcome Isaac!
Nowadays many homoeopaths, to get speedier results in practice in point of patients & money are using Patents, combination, biochemics, mother tinctures at a time. What do you think due to such things Ii there any chance of Suppression & what's your modern view towards concept of suppression as told by Dr. Hahnemann.
Dr. Isaac Golden: I would firstly question whether people who use complexes are practicing as homoeopaths. It would see this as a more naturopathic approach. If a homoeopath chooses the most similar remedy the results should be speedier than using a less similar combination remedy.
Regarding suppression, I believe that if the practitioner doses inappropriately then it is possible to cause suppression with a similar as well as with a partially similar remedy. If we impose the “remedy disease” on a patient for any period of time the suppression is possible, so ceasing a dose as soon as there is a response is the key to preventing suppression.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Please tell me in brief status of Homoeopathy includes your personal experience or problems you have faced in Homoeopathic Practice in Australia
Dr. Isaac Golden: Homoeopathy in Australia is steadily progressing. There is recognition by Governmental agencies (such as the TGA), and by private health insurance funds. The local professional associations are mainly co-operating with each other, and the largest association - the Australian Homoeopathic Association - regularly makes representations to Governments.
Community recognition is also growing, and an increasing number of patients are visiting homoeopaths.
However homoeopathy, like many other forms of natural medicine, still faces considerable opposition from the pharmaceutical industry lobby, including their supporters on the Australian Medical Association. They are particularly active in ensuring that homoeopathy does not get onto the Government Medicare system, i.e. homoeopaths are not formally recognised as mainstream medical providers. This opposition has, as usual, money not science at its core.
My work with homoeoprophylaxis has attracted a number of investigations by State Government health departments, and by the TGA, and I have had restrictions placed on where I can send homoeoprophylaxis programs. However I have the support of many local practitioners who use my program.
Education in homoeopathy is also steadily growing, and it is now taught to a University Degree standard.
Most of us believe that the future is bright, so long as those who use homoeopathy keep informing Governments of their wish to access this wonderful healing modality
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Whats your view towards Necessity for reproving of homoeopathic medicines which were proved during Hahnemannian time ?
Is it really necessary and if yes does it can bring change in our Materia Medica with new discoveries ?
Dr. Isaac Golden: Every remedy is “work-in-progress”. So therefore are our Materia Medicas and our Repertories. We probably can never know every symptom that a remedy can produce. So re-proving are always potentially valuable. The main debate is how they should be done. I am somewhat conservative here, and favour the traditional proving rather than dream proving, speculations, and psychic divinations etc, which would seem to open up results to very subjective influences. However I am not familiar with these, and others may offer convincing support.
I always tell my students two things – (i) learn the fundamentals of homoeopathy first before dabbling in the newer developments, and (ii) never dismiss something only because it is new – examine it, learn from it, and use it if you feel it is consistent with the fundamental principles of homoeopathy – the Law of Similars and the Law of Mininum Dose.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Is there any necessity for up gradation of 6th edition of Organon of Medicine ?
Dr. Isaac Golden: If Hahnemann had lived another 50 productive years we probably would be studying the 12th edition rather than the 6th. Progress in thought and practice should never stop. However, that progress must remain consistent with the fundamental principles or it ceases to be homoeopathic. For example, remedy selection using kinesiology may work, but it is not homoeopathy. I am a homoeopath, not any other sort of “path”. Other methods may be fine, but we should be unambiguous about who we are and what we do. If we call ourselves a homoeopath, then we must practice within the fundamental principles. Because they are based on natural Law, they have not and will not change. But we can progress and learn within these principles.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Views regarding Importance of diagnosis of disease in Homoeopathy. Is it must ?
Dr. Isaac Golden: I assume you mean allopath diagnosis. It is important, but even more important is understanding WHY the patient is experiencing symptoms on all levels- physical, mental and emotional. If we don’t treat the WHY, the results will be incomplete.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Views about new additions to Kent 's Repertory. Is it scientific ?
Dr. Isaac Golden: I don’t know about scientific, but they are very welcomed and very necessary. To only use Kent’s original repertory would be very limiting as it would ignore all the new provings of new and existing remedies. I think Roger van Zandvoort and others deserve our sincere thanks.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Views regarding Using repertories like Synthesis or Complete Repertory is it scientific like repertory authored or maintained by Dr. Kent or Dr. Boennnighausen ?
Dr. Isaac Golden: answered above
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Distribution of Preventive medicine in various Genus Epidemicus like Chikangunia, Viral fever, Conjunctivitis. Are you agree with Genus Epidemicus concept of Dr. Hahnemann if not then why ?
Dr. Isaac Golden:
Prevention was passionately supported by Hahnemann in his essay The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. It can be successfully achieved with either the Genus Epidemicus (GE) remedy (if the epidemic has already broken out and the GE is known), or by the Nosode of the organism if the epidemic is on the way but not yet reached the area. My 20 years of empirical research in this area shows that we can offer results that are comparably effective as specific vaccines, but without any short or long term damage to the recipient. I hope to prepare an article for the next edition of your Journal on my findings.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Which Repertory you feel better to use in day to day practice ?
Dr. Issac Golden: I use ISIS Vision software, and have the Complete and RUV options. I also use Murphy’s repertory (which is on the software, and which I find very helpful at times).
In my consulting room I have an old copy of Synthesis on my desk to quickly refer to. If I need to do a complex analysis I take the symptoms to my computer (in another room), and tell patient’s I will come back in 5 minutes with the analysis and more questions.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Do you have any experience with LM Potency any disadvantage you have noted ?
Dr. Issac Golden: I have used LM’s a little in the past, but didn’t find results much different to centesimals, so that is what I mainly use. They are much easier to purchase in the full range of remedies and potencies than LM’s, and easier for the patients to use. But I do know some practitioners who use only LM’s and get great results. I don’t actually think it matters what you use, as long as you use it well. The same applies to high and low potency prescribers. I personally use all the potencies, depending on what I perceive my patient’s needs to call for, and I think it is foolish to artificially limit oneself. But the important thing is to do well whatever you decide to do.
Dr. Pawan S. Chandak : Please tell me your concept or approach towards Modern Homoeopathy.
Dr. Issac Golden: By “modern homoeopathy”, do you mean the ideas of Scholten and Sankaran? Their work has certainly created division within the international community, with people passionately for or against.
I have not studied either approach in great detail for two reasons - I have so little spare time, and we already have a method that works. However I greatly respect their contributions, and what dabbling I have done has been very interesting. I enjoy their descriptions of remedy groups, but never assume that they are anything but opinions. I know a few people who use Sankaran,s method of examination, but have no particular interest in rushing in to try it myself. We have a method that provides excellent results if used well.
My only concern is when new students or recent graduates are taught these methods as being the fundamentals of homoeopathy. They are not, and they can leave a person with a weak foundation. I truly believe a solid foundation in the essence of Hahnemannian homoeopathy is the first essential. THEN have a look at these new developments in the light of experience, and use them appropriately if you are drawn to them.
Guru worship rather than careful consideration is not ideal, whether it is of a conservative Vithoulkas or a radical Sankaran.
I believe that the best homoeopaths are cautious, reasoned, compassionate, and follow the simple truths upon which our wonderful healing modality is based.
Contact Dr. Isaac Golden at:
Isaac Golden Publications
PO Box 695
Gisborne, Vic, 3437
Australia
email:
admin@homstudy.net
|
|
