The Utility of Homeopathy in Treatment

The Utility of Homeopathy in Treatment Student name: Date: The Utility of Homeopathy in Treatment Introduction Is there any basis to justify that the practice of homeopathy is suitable as an option for treatment? The medical world contains a plethora of questions that seek to address the functionality of homeopathy as a form of medical treatment. Several groups of medical practitioners counter the use of the alternative approach for treatment as unsuitable because of the lack of scientific evidence to support the practice. Two questions are of major importance in the determination of the utility. First, is there any evidence to support the application of the practice? Second, are there precautionary measures to undertake in practice, which are worth consideration? Identification of clear supporting evidence about the use of homeopathy may shift perspectives about the applicability of the form of treatment. The paper focuses on evidence that supports the use of homeopathy as a suitable form of treatment for individuals who would like to explore alternative forms of medicine. Background Information about the Treatment Samuel Hahnemann is responsible for the establishment of homeopathy. Practice involved in the treatment has basis on three main principles, which are negligibility, individualization of cases, and similarity (Aversa, Petrescu, Apicella & Petrescu, 2016). The principles work in the following manner. The principle of negligibility dictates that substances used in treatment are not homeopathic unless each respects the law of similarity. The principle of similarity states that substances for treating patients should produce symptoms in a healthy person under experimentation, which are similar to the symptoms the patient produces. For example, the principle of individualization states that the practitioner should adapt the substances to patients. The homeopath needs to analyze all the symptoms a patient exhibits, inclusive of symptoms with no relation to the disease. On the basis of individualization of treatment, administration of the chosen substances can be in the form of safe weighted dosages. Most practitioners tend to prescribe dilutions of the substances, sometimes in low concentration and which have been subject to very frequent high vibrations. Clinical trials have established instances of positive results during tests but several systematic reviews have disqualified the possibilities on the basis of chance, biases in publication or application of debatable methods of research (Aversa, Petrescu, Apicella & Petrescu, 2016). Homeopathy is popular but lacks therapeutic efficiency, which discredits the method as a permanent general medical solution. A large portion of the medical and scientific society considers the treatment as a pseudo-science that contradicts the knowledge in biology and chemistry that are based on the main ideologies of homeopathy, which the homeopaths established. The disputers maintain that some of the diluted remedies lack chemical function, and the effects of treatment lack chemical efficiency but only produce placebo effects. Despite the negative feedback, homeopathy still serves as an effective treatment for diseases. Perception of Homeopathy as a Form of Treatment The author chose to focus on the era during which homeopathy emerged to understand more about the treatment. The author explains that if anyone was unaware of the complex origins of the practice, the person is likely to consider homeopathy as verification of the functioning of nature or as a practice that lacks scientific evidence (Connor, 2018). The argument seeks to establish that homeopathy is a product of the culture of the era when the treatment developed so there should not be debates about validity of the practice on the basis of scientific validity. The development of homeopathy sought to advance the health care system through the influence of medical practitioners, who would refine and improve the complexity of understanding judgments in clinical scenarios. The practitioners should seek to establish a complex and deep understanding of diseases, personhood, suffering, and other similar issues; which would include pain, remedies, and restorative associations (Connor, 2018). The services patients receive should encourage tolerance for individual observation of personal thoughts, emotions, and methods for identification of and reaction to emotional and cognitive prejudice. The practitioner will then be able to integrate judgment obtained from various humanistic, scientific, and clinical sources in treatment. In addition, the practitioner can include affective, moral, and relational components, which include critical curiosity, attentiveness, presence, self-awareness, instrumental work, emotional labor, and legitimate introspective. Hahnemann, the creator of homeopathy, emphasized the importance of a patient recounting empirical symptoms, undergoing comprehensive anmnesis, continuous self-assessment, and self-narrative. The reason was because people have different experiences of the same illness but each person will suffer from a different disease. Analysis of the Application of Homeopathy Discussions in the practice of homeopathy have revolved around areas of research in health care such as basic research, meta-analyses, and controlled randomized trials. The contributions have shaped the outcomes in homeopathy about the necessity of research, utility of individual fields of research and methods used, and the role the outcomes play in the course of future research (Ammon et. al., 2016). The study showed illustrated that conventional methods employed in the production of medicinal products has basis on research, which should conform to the standards of medical practice. On the same stance, homeopathy is a successful practice that should measure up to the standards of scientific research. Investigations of homeopathic treatment under standard circumstances have provided indications of significant improvements in the quality of life, and symptoms that patients exhibit (Ammon et. al., 2016). The observations are comparable with reports from cases of conventional treatment. The only difference is that homeopathic treatment exhibits fewer signs of negative effects compared to conventional treatment. Half of the evaluations on homeopathic treatment showed that the patients incurred a lower cost for treatment. The methodologies used are inappropriate for the development of a casual association between therapeutic results and medical therapy (Ammon et. al., 2016). Controlled randomized trials that employed proper methods for the study of individual homeopathy therapy, which possess high potencies illustrate that homeopathy is superior to claims of placebo effects. The remedies with high potencies have a specific effect. The data from meta-analyses the researchers conducted also agree that the potent remedies have specific efficiencies. No theory exists for a definitive statement about the observations but several basic researches of high quality provide reports of specified effects from the use of high potency remedies. Empirical results exist to elaborate on the pharmaceutical, physicochemical and biological methods through which homeopathic treatments work. Further Research into Homeopathy The section describes the functionality of substances used for treatment in homeopathy. The information has basis on a study conducted to investigate homeopathic substances used for treatment (Stock-Schroeer, Endler, Koczy & Baumgartner, 2016). Analysis included the identification of organisms studied, conditions under treatment, substances used, in vivo/in vitro, therapeutic/ prophylacti...