In this lecture, Kent explores the third major duty of a Homoeopathic physician as stated in Organon §146—to use only those medicines whose effects have been clearly proven on healthy individuals and apply them homoeopathically. This principle forms the foundation for the rest of the Organon.
According to §147, the most appropriate remedy is the one whose symptoms most closely resemble the totality of those found in the patient. This remedy becomes the “specific” for that particular case. However, Homoeopathy rejects the idea of fixed specifics like those seen in other medical systems (e.g., a fixed remedy for diarrhea or headache). A remedy is only a true specific when it is perfectly matched to the unique symptoms and constitution of a patient.
Kent emphasizes the word “characterizes”, urging students to consider what makes a case truly individual. The Homoeopath must find the characteristic symptoms that make the disease different from any other case. Likewise, the remedy must be understood through its characteristic symptoms. When the characteristics of the patient and the remedy match, and the remedy cures, only then can it be called truly homoeopathic—that is, its effectiveness is proven by results.
A remedy doesn’t become homoeopathic simply because it’s potentized or in your medicine kit. It becomes homoeopathic only after it cures the patient and brings about healing in the right direction: from above downward, from within outward, and in reverse order of symptoms. This defines a true homoeopathic prescription.
In §148, Hahnemann gives a theory on how a remedy works in the body, but even he admits it’s just a theory. However, §149 is factual and must be accepted—it states that when the correct homoeopathic remedy is given, even severe acute diseases can subside rapidly—within hours or days, depending on the case. So, if a case doesn’t improve, it’s not a failure of Homoeopathy, but a sign that the wrong remedy was selected.
Kent emphasizes the need to treat the patient as a whole, not just individual symptoms or diagnoses. For instance, in scarlet fever, if you only treat the rash and not the individual, you may fail. But if you prescribe based on what characterizes the person’s unique response to the illness, the cure will follow.
§150 deals with minor, accessory symptoms. Kent advises that we should not over-treat small, trivial ailments, especially during ongoing constitutional treatment. If every little cold, ache, or mood change leads to a new prescription, it can disturb the whole case. He advises restraint: don’t treat every tiny complaint, especially if it seems self-limiting. If needed, give placebo and observe.
These small indispositions often lack clear, characteristic symptoms, making it hard to prescribe accurately. However, severe acute diseases usually have well-marked, definite symptoms, making them easier to treat homoeopathically. Sometimes, these little complaints eventually reveal deeper constitutional patterns, which help refine the overall treatment.
Lastly, §151 points out that when a few symptoms appear very strongly, a deeper examination will usually reveal more symptoms, allowing for a complete understanding of the case.