FREE ESSAY ON HOMEOPATHY

HOMEOPATHY

Running head: HOMEOPATHY 
Theory of Homeopathy
Abstract
A large portion of the United States population believes that alternative approaches to
health care are less evasive and more effective than so-called Western medicine. This
report looks at the efficacy of homeopathy. As this therapy moves into the mainstream
there is a need for doctors and nurses to understand its benefits and possible adverse
effects. 
Theory of Homeopathy
Homeopathy is a type of medical treatment that is based on the theory of treating certain
diseases with very small doses of drugs that, in a healthy person and in large doses,
would produce symptoms like those of the disease (Webster, 1982). From the transcripts of
"Talk of the Nation" (National Public Radio), the question of,What is Homeopathy? was
asked to Dr. Judith Reichenberg-Ullman. She is naturopathic physician, board certified in
homeopathic medicine, president of the International Foundation for Homeopathy, and
author of, "Homeopathic Self-Care". Her reply was:
It's an approach that treats the whole person, and it uses the law of similars, which
means that we use the same substance which would cause symptoms in a person in a healthy
person to treat those same symptoms in a person who has them.
Homeopathy is one of the fastest growing areas of alternative medicine. Homeopathic
remedies are sold in pharmacies over the counter although some homeopathic drugs can be
obtained by prescription only. Since homeopathy is attracting more interest and therefore
an ever-increasing number of patients, it is also appealing to a large and quickly
growing number of practitioners as well. Some of these are medical doctors who are
frustrated by what they view as the limitations of conventional medicine. These
professionals, who are utilizing homeopathy as an alternative medical treatment to offer
their clients, are seeking methods that emphasize treating the entire patient as opposed
to focusing on just the illness, as conventional medicine tends to do. Homeopathy closes
the distance between healer and patient. A gap that some argue mainstream medicine not
only created but continues to widen with it's tendency towards coldness and indifference
to it's patients.
Homeopathic is effective for a wide range of ailments such as colds, flu, arthritis,
allergies, and sprains to name just a few of the maladies for which there are homeopathic
treatments for. But even homeopathy's most devoted supporters can not explain why it
works, only that it does work. Critics of the homeopathic methods argue that the
fundamental ideas behind homeopathy defy the laws of chemistry and physics and that it's
theory makes no sense in the scientific world. (Langman, 1997). They also claim that
homeopathic 'cures' are due to the so-called placebo effect; that the patients and
professionals of homeopathy believe so strongly in their treatment that their belief
system is actually the cure, not the homeopathic method used. (Langman, 1997).
Homeopathy's newfound success also dismays many physicians, scientists and consumer
advocates who regard the homeopathic formulas as ineffective, at best, and dangerous, at
worst. They're especially concerned that by attempting to cure their ills with the
homeopathic method, patients will not seek assistance from established treatments for
very serious, perhaps life threatening ailments.
Whether the treatment is mainstream or alternative medicine, as is the homeopathic
method, there will always be critics as well of converts. Regardless of the criticism, as
alternative medicine becomes more prevalent in western society there is a need to further
educate nurses and other healthcare providers as to the advantages and possible
disadvantages of homeopathy.
Homeopathy is an alternative system of medicine that was founded in the early nineteenth
century by a German physician, Dr. Hahnemann. It had its greatest popularity in the late
nineteenth century in the United States. During that time as many as fifteen percent of
the doctors in this country were homeopathic practitioners. However, with the advent of
modern medicine, homeopathy began to appear out dated and primitive. Modern medicine
seemed more advanced and probably more 'civilized' as well. The popularity of homeopathy
greatly diminished. (World Book Encyclopedia, 1998).
Homeopathy has seen a resurgence of interest in the United States and other areas in
Europe in just the last fifteen to twenty years as patients have began questioning the
effectiveness of modern medicine. Homeopathic books can be found in many bookstores and
homeopathic physicians in most towns and cities.(World Book Encyclopedia,1998). As the
practice of homeopathy become more prevalent in these modern times, it seems apparent
that patients are seeking more than the current practices of medicine have been
providing; treatment that is safer, less evasive, and which treat the disease and the
patient simultaneously.
Classical homeopathy rests on three principles: the law of similars, the single medicine,
and the minimum dose. As mentioned earlier, the law of similars states that a disease is
cured by a medicine that creates symptoms similar to those the patient is experiencing in
a healthy person. Therefore an important part of the prescription of a homeopathic
medicine is a lengthy interview to determine all the symptoms the patient is
experiencing. The homeopathic physician then determines which medicine that best matches
the symptoms that the patient is experiencing and prescribes it to the patient.
The principle of the single remedy states that a single medicine should cover all the
symptoms the patient is experiencing mentally, emotionally, and physically. For example,
a classical homeopath would not prescribe one medicine for a headache and another for an
upset stomach if a patient were in his office with complaining of both. He or she would
find a single medicine that covered both symptoms and prescribe it. (Encarta, 1998).
The principle of the minimum dose has two parts. In the first part, the homeopathic
physician only prescribes a small number of doses of the homeopathic medicine and waits
to see what effect the medicine has. Second, the medicine is given in an infinitesimal
dose. Homeopaths have discovered that the effect of homeopathic medicines is strengthened
upon successive dilutions as long as the medicine is violently shaken between each
dilution. Medicines are typically used in very high dilutions. (Encarta, 1998).
It is the use of infinitesimal doses that is the most controversial aspect of homeopathy
and the reason why most conventional doctors claim it functions only as a placebo.
However, a number of controlled studies have been performed which show the effectiveness
of homeopathic medicine in treating a number of diseases. One summary of this research is
a study published in the British Medical Journal. The authors of this study are not
homeopaths but medical school professors who were asked by the Dutch government to review
the existing research. The results reported neither positive nor negative effects of the
use of homeopathic remedies. Instead the outcome suggested that homeopathy should
continue to be researched as a possible, useful alternative to conventional therapy.
(Kleijnen,1991). This information was a huge success in the eyes of naturopaths and
others that use alternative medicine as a source of care.
People who practice homeopathy as a form of medical treatment need to be prepared to deal
with the potential consequences of that practice. There should be an understanding of
anatomy and pharmacology, with a good formal grounding in homeopathy and clinical
training. The best place to get the first part of the training is in medical, nursing or
physician assistant programs. Good training in homeopathy, with clinical rotations, is
not that easy to find. As in conventional medicine, there are times in homeopathic
practice where non-physician practitioners can prescribe safely. Although these
practitioners should always have a physician backing them up. 
There are many case scenarios or clinical situations that recognize homeopathy as a valid
treatment for certain ailments and not just the result of a placebo effect. For example,
in 1980 the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported a study involving arthritic
patients treated with an anti-inflammatory drug. Half of the group received a homeopathic
remedy while a control group received placebos. The double-blind study concluded that
there was a statistically significant improvement in pain, stiffness and grip strength
among patients who received homeopathic treatment. (Gibson,1980).
A more recent study published in the Lancet compared the effects of a homeopathic
preparation of mixed grass pollen with placebo in 144 patients with active hay fever.
Patients treated with homeopathic remedies showed a significant reduction in both patient
and doctor assessed symptom scores. There was no evidence that placebo effect could fully
explain the reduction in symptoms. ( Reilly,1986). As mentioned previously, a review of
107 clinical trials of homeopathic medications published in the British Medical Journal,
showed positive results of homeopathy in 81 trials. (Kleijnen,1991)
Although there has been research to validate the methodology and the effectiveness of
homeopathy, the concern for some of the population to rely solely on homeopathic
treatment leads to the ethical issues concerning health care. Using homeopathic medicines
as a first mode of treatment in nonemergency primary care would lead to its application
in a wide, perhaps even a very wide assortment of acute care. At the most extreme extent,
someone could say that homeopathic medicines can and should be considered whenever some
type of heroic medical treatment is not necessary. At the other end, one could say that
homeopathic medicines can and should be considered only when there is no evidence that
the benefits of a conventional medical treatment outweigh its potential side effects. 
One might think that a middle position is the best way to go, however, finding that
middle position is not always easy. For instance, one might ask the seemingly important
question: what evidence is there that either homeopathic or conventional medicine is more
effective? There are very few studies that provide such a comparison, and even when it
has been done, it is an unsound comparison. For instance, while it may be true that a
painkiller will decrease the pain in patients more effectively than a homeopathic
medicine, it does so with various side effects. And while a person taking a homeopathic
medicine may initially have more pain than a person taking a painkiller, the long-term
health of the person may be a more appropriate measure of a treatment's successes.
Conventional physicians insist that a person's new complaint is not related with the
previous one. In opposition, homeopathic practitioners assert that nothing comes from
nowhere and that disease is often built from previous illnesses.
With all the research, claims, and opinions on homeopathy versus conventional therapy,
rarely was it mentioned for both therapies to be utilized in combination to better
diagnose and treat patients. More of an integrative approach in which homeopathy and
conventional medicines are used together, instead of in apposition. One example is, while
the use of homeopathic medicines can sometimes prevent the need for surgery, homeopaths
generally acknowledge that surgery is sometimes necessary. When surgery is medically
indicated, using homeopathic medicines before, during, and after the procedure can help
the patient recover more rapidly.
Another strong example of the successful integration of conventional and homeopathic
treatment was demonstrated in the study on Nicaraguan children suffering from diarrhea.
(Jennifer 1994). The children were given oral rehydration therapy, a special salt
solution that keeps children from dying by helping them retain water, but does not cure
the underlying infection of which the diarrhea is a symptom. The study showed that the
administration of individually chosen homeopathic medicines sped up the underlying
healing process
Another integrative approach is exemplified in the treatment of asthma. A study published
in the Lancet showed that conventional allergy testing was useful in selecting a
homeopathic medicine that provided benefit (Khuda-Bukhsh, 1991). Researchers used
conventional allergy testing to determine what substance people with asthma were most
allergic to. They then gave this substance in homeopathic doses to the subjects, and
these subjects had significantly fewer symptoms of asthma than those subjects given a
placebo. The researchers called this approach homeopathic immunotherapy. 
An integrative approach may sometimes mean that homeopathic medicines are used first, and
then, only if they were ineffective, would conventional therapies be used. The reverse
approach is also possible and is presently more common; most people have already used
many conventional treatments without adequate success and are now seeking homeopathic
care for their conditions. As people become increasingly familiar with homeopathy, it is
likely that they will use these natural and safer medicines prior to the more risky
therapeutic interventions offered by conventional physicians. 
Part of the trick to making either homeopathic or conventional treatments work is to seek
the care of well-trained professionals and to give their treatments reasonable time to
act. Sometimes a person is in severe pain, and while it may be possible to find the
correct homeopathic remedy, he or she wants a higher degree of certainty that relief will
be rapid. In such instances, it makes sense to use conventional medicines at least
temporarily, while homeopathic medicines are recommended after the acute crisis is
diminished or over. 
Homeopathists utilize highly diluted forms of a substance which causes particular
symptoms in healthy people, can be given to someone ill with those symptoms. Once
stimulated by the substance, the body goes on to heal. There are over 2000 homeopathic
remedies, made from plant, mineral and animal sources. They are prescribed on the basis
of health history, body type, and physical and emotional symptoms. (World Book
Encyclopedia,1998). The focus is to treat people who are unwell rather than the diseases.
The first visit is likely to be an hour or so long, and involve lots of questions and
answers as the homeopath gets your background. Ten people with headaches may each get a
different remedy. These patients tend to be skeptical of the so-called homeopathic
remedies found in health shops and chemists, where one bottle containing a combination of
remedies supposedly treats the same condition in everyone.
The theory of homeopathy has no known scientific basis. It is true that small amounts of
a substance may stimulate the body to fight against larger doses of that substance since
this is how many vaccinations work. But in homeopathy, the amounts used are so diluted,
the remedy may not contain even a single molecule of the original substance. Science says
it therefore it cannot be effective. One response by homeopaths is to suggest that the
diluting liquid must contain a memory of the original substance. Some published trials
have found no support for homeopathy, but others suggest it has an effect on problems as
diverse as diarrhea and mosquito bites. Medical conditions that patients most utilize
homeopathic methods for:
General malaise 15%
Allergy 11%
Gynecology/obstetrics 7%
Stress/anxiety 7%
Advantages most commonly quoted
Harmless, no side effects 
Natural 
The disadvantage most commonly quoted regarding homeopathy is that the treatments,
particularly the drugs can be expensive and the time for the treatments to work can
sometimes be long. (Consumer Online).
Although the concept of integrative medicine makes sense, one should not have a narrow
viewpoint about the subject. It is not always easy, therapeutically effective or cost
efficient to use homeopathic and conventional therapies concurrently or even in sequence.
Sometimes a patient, with the advice of his or her physician, must decide to use one
approach or the other. As is the case with all medical treatments the patient should be
properly informed and educated about the illness they suffer as well alternatives in
therapies.
Ultimately it is the role of the clinician to inform patients of the risks and benefits
of the various prospective treatments available. Unfortunately, while there may be a body
of research to show that certain conventional medical treatments are effective in
treating a specific disease, symptom, or laboratory reading, this does not necessarily
mean that this treatment actually improves the overall health of people. The same
limitation can be said about homeopathic research to date. There is presently inadequate
research regarding true 'cures' that isn't easily disputable. It is indeed difficult for
clinicians to provide patients with concrete evidence and obvious data to ease the
decision making process. Clinicians must therefore be humble, and they should remember
the words of Hypocrites who insisted that physicians should: First, do no harm.
Bibliography
References
Bower, DL. (1998). Homeopathy. World Book Encyclopedia [CD-ROM].
Conan, N.. (1998). Transcripts of Talk of the Nation (National Public Radio),
Homeopathy.[Online]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com/.
Consumer Online. (1997, September). Consumer Magazine [Online] Available:
http://www.consumer.org.nz/consumer/Sept97-survey.html
Gibson, R., Gibson, S., MacNeill, A., Buchanan, W. (1980). Homeopathic Therapy in
Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-Blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial, British
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 9, 453-459.
Jennifer, J., Jimenez, M., Gloyd, S. (1994, May). Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea
with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics,93, (5)
719-25.
Khuda-Bukhsh A.R., Banik, S. (1991). Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated
Mice and its Alteration by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug. Berlin
Journal of Research in Homeopathy,1, 254.
Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P., Riet, G.. (1991, February 9). Clinical trials of
Homeopathy. British Medical Journal, 302, 516(8).
Langman M. (1997, October). Homeopathy: Does it really work? Or is it merely a placebo
effect? Healthfacts, 22, 3.
Reilly, D.T., Taylor, M.A., McSharry, C., Aitchison,T. (1986). Is Homeopathy a Placebo
Response? Controlled Trial of Homeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as Model.
Lancet,2, (8512) 881-886.
Webster's New World Dictionary.(1982). (2nd ed).. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.