Download PDF
Homœopathic Links 2017; 30(04): 222-234
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608935
Philosophy and Discussion
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Constitutional Treatment versus Clinical Homeopathy

Christoph Abermann
1   Ärztezentrum für Homöopathie, Gmunden, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum to: Constitutional Treatment versus Clinical HomeopathyHomœopathic Links 2018; 31(01): 088-088
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635099

Abstract

Constitutional treatment by the Kent method is quite often not successful where severe diseases are involved. In such cases, it is better, when looking for a homoeopathic remedy, to go by the pathology of the disease and its accompanying symptoms. A detailed list of the other situations is provided —apart from severe pathologies—where what is called clinical prescription is beneficial. As a homoeopath, one has to have two tool kits: one for constitutional prescription and one for clinical prescription. The numerous differences between the two methods with regards to choice of remedy and potency, the repetition of the remedy and case management are illustrated in a table.

Keywords

Constitutional treatment - Kentianism - Clinical treatment - One-sided illness - Severer dissimilar illnesses - Homeopathic treatment - Case management - Repetition of remedy

This article was originally published in German in “Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie”: Abermann C. Konstitutionsbehandlung versus klinische Behandlung. ZKH 2015;59 (3):140–155.