Forming connections in the homeopathic consultation

University of Southampton, Primary Care & Population Sciences, Aldermoor Health Centre, United Kingdom.
Patient Education and Counseling (Impact Factor: 2.2). 02/2012; 89(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.004
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVE: A previous study which explored homeopathic practitioners' in depth understanding and experiences of homeopathic consultations identified "connecting" as a key component of the consultation. This paper reports on "connecting" and its role in the consultation. METHOD: Using a qualitative grounded theory approach data was collected from homeopaths using in-depth interviews, observations of homeopathic consultations and solicited practitioner reflective diaries. Constant comparison assisted code, concept and category formation to form a model of the UK classical homeopathic consultation. RESULTS: "Connecting", describes a complex notion of relationship in the homeopathic consultation consisting of four dimensions, and performs several roles within the consultation that enable practitioners to elicit symptoms, identify expectations, assist with prescribing, help patients engage with homeopathic principles and stimulate healing. CONCLUSION: This study shows the homeopath as an important component of the therapeutic context forming complex relationships and using communication that is skills based and inductively shaped to interpret and respond to each individual patient and their narrative in the consultation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study could have implications for teachers, students and practitioners of homeopathy by influencing training needs, and could prove instructive for other clinicians as homeopaths' communication style could be used to augment other consultations.


Available from: Caroline Eyles, Mar 17, 2014
  • Source
    • "Homeopaths, like other health practitioners, generally practice with the best interests of patients at heart, privilege the virtues of clinical relationships (Flanigan 2012)— care, respect for human dignity and vulnerability, veracity, confidentiality, and so forth—and acknowledge the needs, beliefs, attitudes, and values of the people who seek their care and their right to make health care choices (see, e.g., The Society of Homeopaths 2012). Indeed homeopathy, as with some other forms of health care practice, privileges patients' values, goals, and preferences (Plunger 2007, 2008) and gives meticulous attention to patient–practitioner communication (Eyles, Leydon, and Brian 2012). The choice to seek care from a homeopath can be just as valid and as ethically sound as any other health care choice that a patient or consumer makes, and the notion that consent or agency is untenable in respect to homeopathy (Grill and Hansson 2005) is deeply paternalistic and challenges the very idea of moral autonomy (see, e.g., Friends of Science in Medicine, www.scienceinmedicine. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.
    Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 07/2014; 12(2). DOI:10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, complementary medicine (CM) approaches are integrated within a growing number of health care services worldwide. Implementation of CM within primary, secondary and tertiary settings of health care requires attention to a variety of communication challenges. In this special issue of Patient Education and Counseling 23 articles are presented about the patient–provider communication on complementary approaches, and the implementation and integration of CM in health care. Parallel to CM integration in the clinical arena, this special issue emphasizes the importance of two complementary axes: in medical education and in research, particularly on management of chronic illness and life-threatening diseases. The three legs of the integrative stool – research, education, and clinical practice – are perceived in the light of open, non-judgmental patient–health care provider–CM practitioner communication and a patient-centered bio-psycho-social–cultural–spiritual agenda.
    Patient Education and Counseling 12/2012; 89(3):363–367. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2012.10.003 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a great overlap between the way of seeing the world in clinical homeopathy and in the technical philosophical system known as phenomenology. A knowledge of phenomenologic principles reveals Hahnemann to have been an unwitting phenomenologist. The ideas of phenomenology as applied to medicine show that homeopathy is the ideal medical system to fulfill the goals of coming ever closer to true patient concerns and experience of illness.
    Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy 07/2013; 102(3):225-9. DOI:10.1016/j.homp.2013.05.003 · 0.76 Impact Factor
Show more