In the last issue of Homœopathica I said in my editorial that virtually all contemporary views on miasms had little connection, apart from name, with Hahnemann’s writings on the subject. I said the wish to categorise disease or human constitution into a small number of groups is common to several systems of medicine, and homœopaths are prone to this impulse too. I contend this theorising is not a good idea, and leads only to poor quality prescribing - though, of course, I am well aware the theorisers firmly believe otherwise.
One of the first people associated with homœopathy to espouse a three-category system was von Grauvogel (1850-1877). On considering the fact that the most common elements in the body are hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon and nitrogen, he said people could be prominently “watery” (hydrogenoid), have an exaggerated influence of oxygen in their body (oxygenoid), or have abnormal proportions of carbon and nitrogen (carbo-nitrogenoid). Remedies may be classified to reflect these groups, he believed. Details may be found in J. H. Clarke’s Constitutional Medicine.
More recently León Vannier (1880-1963) exerted a great influence over French homœopathy with his constitutional theory that the bony framework of the body showed whether a person was, in the main, under the influence of carbon (the carbonic), phosphorus (phosphoric) or fluorine (fluoric). His books, such as Homœopathy Human Medicine, have diagrams showing the usual angles at which these three types hold their limbs, and similar pointers to identifying a person’s fundamental constitution.
This is all quite interesting, but it takes prescribers away from the basic premise of homœopathy as enunciated by Samuel Hahnemann that cure is effected by matching drug and patient symptoms, and/or (where relevant) considering the cause(s) of the patient’s morbid state. I repeat, the three miasms of Hahnemann are the never-wellsince state induced by the real diseases (and/or their inappropriate treatment) of Human Papilloma Virus (genital warts and similar), syphilis, and a wide range of skin conditions and morbid manifestations which Hahnemann thought had a connection with cutaneous conditions. These chronic miasms are not inherited. Anyone with compelling proof that this depiction of Hahnemann’s ideas is incorrect is invited to present this evidence for publication in this journal. Also, any contribution on the origin of modern miasm theories would be much appreciated.
A recent publication of the Medical Council of New Zealand gives the Council’s interpretation of the law relating to the use of the title “doctor”. Of course all sorts of people call themselves “doctor” - dentists, chiropractors, and people with an academic qualification such as a PhD or DSc - as well as MB, ChBs, etc.
However, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003 states that it is an offence to use names, words, titles, abbreviations or descriptions implying that a person is a registered medical practitioner in a setting which could mislead someone into believing they were a registered medical practitioner, if that person is not qualified to be a medical practitioner .
People in New Zealand who qualified in various therapies in other countries, and who were called doctor or equivalent there, usually keep using “doctor” here - notably practitioners of Chinese medicine, Indian homœopaths, and people who were conventional medical practitioners in Europe but are not registered to practise as such here.
My take on this is that it is okay to use the title of doctor on signs, business cards, literature, etc, if you follow your name with an abbreviation of your qualification which shows adequately that you are not an MB, ChB, MD, dentist, vet, or chiropractor. I think it likely that if you are an MD from America, say, and not registered here, and set up here prescribing only homœopathic medicines, you would be in breach of the Act if you used Dr as a title, though it might take a Court case to establish a definitive interpretation. Obviously you can be Dr in the White Pages phone book with impunity, but in the Yellow Pages under “Homœopaths” it may be prudent to give your LCEH or BHMS to avoid a charge of deception.
Bruce Barwell