The use of the simillimum which is a single remedy prescribed for curative
purpose is one of the important basic tenets of Homoeopathy. But.  with the passage
of time, we find a changing pattern of homoeopathic prescribing in which some
of the practitioners are found to be using more than one remedy in a single prescription It is often being claimed by these fellow -practitioners that such mixtureof remedies work faster and give more definite relief to the patient. However, I do not think that this claim has been scientifically or substantially proved On the contrary, I must record that I have never come across a single case which has been
cured by such combinations. In fact, however, most of the excellent cures have
been established by using the single remedy
It would not be wrong at this stage to explore the situation to see why one
uses multiple remedies. I can think of the following reasons which may attract a
physician to use multiple remedies.
1. To cut short the labour of case-taking and individualisation.
2 With the idea to give faster and early relief to the patient so as to retain the
faith of the patient.
3. Because the prescriber is not sure of finding the “Simillimum “. He then
looks for another avenue to prescribe and mixes more than one remedy according
to the symptoms available.
4. With the idea that if one remedy will not act, one out of the multiple remedies
given m iy have an action to give relief.
All these conditions would come to a physician’s mind when he lacks in
confidence and the knowledge of the rational art of healing or when he does not
care to follow the principle of Homoeopathy like some of the modern homoeopaths to whom the Hahnemannian and Kentian Philosophy have no meaning.
The mixing and combinations of many drugs in one prescription has indeed
given an impression of” a store of virtues “. But by this method it is impossible
to discover the distinguishing properties of any substance so employed and consequently our knowledge of the materia medica will be kept in confusion and
poverty and ever stunted. Even then the prescription of multiple drugs at a time
is not only being continued but is being: stoutly defended.
The usual mode of prescribing multiple remedies may be (i) As two or
three remedies given In alternation as per particular symptoms (ii) As combinations of Bio-chemic remedies with or without homoeopathic remedies (iii) As Combinations of remedies in same potency or different potencies (iv) As Combinations of homoeopathic drugs with Allopathic drugs or Ayurvedic drugs e.g. Aconite 3X with Aspirin 5 grains. The route of these multiple medicines may be oral or even through injections. This type of practice will eventually lead to the use of rather specific formulae (of combinations) for diseases, which only sounds homeopathic because of the use of dilutions. It may be recalled that Hahnemann had rightly named such practitioners as “Mongrel sect” and had condemned them very bitterly. These sections of practitioners cannot serve the cause of Homoeopathy but can only help homoeopathic pharmacies which produce or sell such combinations to flourish commercially.
Lastly I would like to enumerate some of the evils of multiple prescriptions.
1.      A bar at progress: There is not a single drug of which it can be said that the characteristic curative properties and the uses are thoroughly known, unless it has been well proved on healthy human beings. Under the circumstances if multiple remedies are given, it is evident that their properties and uses can never be really understood.
2.       Even if the combination contains the real remedy, the remedies mixed along
with the real remedy may prove to be a hindrance to the curative action of the
remedy. Every homoeopathic physician is well aware of the curative action of the
correct medicine. So let not some practitioners in their eagerness to bring about
quick relief use multiple remedies and find that in proportion as combined
medicines are used he multiples the chances of his failure.
3.      Even assuming that the use of multiple remedies is effective, no conclusion can
be drawn because one cannot be sure which medicine might have acted. There-
fore, this cannot give satisfaction to scientific practitioners as it does, not help to
build up a corpus of scientific knowledge.
4.       An injury to the patient: By the use of combination-remedies, the patient’s
health may be injured quite unknowingly. It is a popular belief that indiscriminate homoeopathic prescribing can the media of suppression.
5.       The multiple remedy prescription contains several remedies. It is possible
that each one of these remedies may cover one symptom and therefore remove
that symptom. This may give symptomatic palliation but never a cure
Therefore I would like to emphasise that the use of the single remedy for
the individual case is of absolute advantage because of its simplicity, its definite
mode of action and the possibility of judicious study of observations after the
medicine has been employed. This alone can bring about the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health in the most harmless and reliable way.
To conclude, I may quote Sir Isaac Newton who said “More is in vain when less will serve, for nature is pleased with simplicity.”
Source: Indian Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine, JAN_MARCH 1977.

Leave a Comment