Case 50: Where is the picture of Aurum-met?
NATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOMOEOPATHY 2006
Dr D J Sutarwala
We hear many a time from many homoeopaths that one has only to consider the drug picture/drug personality/essence of the patient in selection of the medicine. This view to my understanding is defective. It mainly takes into consideration an individual homoeopaths perception of that medicine, that is, what he feels the drug picture/drug personality/essence of Aurum-met (for eg) and treatment of his patients accordingly.
What for eg. Aurum-met actually is and what it is capable of doing and what the homoeopath feels or knows, Aurum-met is may be two entirely different things and as such I am sure all of you will agree that in such an event the treatment which a homoeopath gives to his patient will be dependent in a way on this limitation of his.
And in a way his treatment is based on speculation to a certain extent! While most of us are guilty of this habit (viewing and treating the patient as per my understanding of the patients sickness rather than viewing the patients sickness from his viewpoint or viewing it as his vitality is expressing it!) we have to learn to come out of this habit. I have tried to highlight this point through the case which I am presenting.
Master AR (h/m//13) was brought to us on 24/11/06
Our Case Record Reads: Epilepsy (this is how the patients father began the narration!) since 2003 may. The first episode started with fainting. There have never been convulsions. The child falls down unconscious or at times just freezes (as per the narration). At such a time his gaze becomes fixed as if he is looking at an object, he does not respond to any stimulus and after a short time he is again his normal self.
The first attack was precipitated after bathing and there is an < bathing and < before exams. He was at that time taken to a neurologist, who after doing a CT Scan and EEG confirmed the diagnosis of epilepsy (absences), and the patient was put on Gardinal at first and when he did not respond put on Tegretol with little improvement.
From November 2005 he says he has an occipital headache before these episodes and he sees things smaller than they actually are.
He loves to eat sweets, chicken and eggs and and likes his food warm.
To me he appeared to be mild and a docile and a serious boy who was very well behaved. He is methodical in his activities and does not have to be told to do his normal activities (like studying). On direct questioning (a thing which should be avoided in case taking) it was revealed that the young person was very responsible and to an extent was duty conscious.
He had a history of febrile convulsions at 8 months of age and a head injury with no complications at 3½ years of age.
He was prescribed Aurum-met 200/ 2 doses and 500/0 (Placebo) on 24/11/06.
My subsequent Follow Ups are given below:
08/12/06: Has had a pulling backward sensation in the eyes and occasional occipital pain. No episodes of epilepsy. Placebo.
05/01/07: No problems, no pulling sensation, no occipital pains. Placebo.
29/01/07: No problems, sensitivity increased (He reacts for eg when mother scolded the younger sister unjustly).
The subsequent visits on 23/2, 29/3 and 9/5 are almost the same thing.
The neurologist has since then reduced the dosage of Tegritol and is thinking of omitting the medicine within a month or two.
The note on 9/5/07 also adds he is very cheerful and this time before the exams did not feel tensed up as he usually does.
Where is the drug picture of Aurum-met as we know it, in this case? And yet the fact that the patient has responded curatively shows that this indeed is an Aurum-met case.