respond to Phosphorus very well, and that Phosphorus is going to bring about tremendous changes, what we call “a very great cure”.
Sometimes the terminology we use for describing these sorts of cases can be a bit confusing. We say this is constitutional prescribing.
What exactly is a constitutional prescription? We say that a practitioner of Classical Homeopathy – which means one rem-edy at a time – engages in constitutional prescribing; But in cases where only one remedy is indicated throughout the patient’s entire life, the remedy is considered to be more constitutional than in other cases. Most probably this remedy will be needed in repetition; that is to say, whenever the patient has a relapse they will most probably go back to, say Phosphorus.
First, in cases that are constitutional, where the patient has needed the same remedy everytime, we have to know that the prognosis will be very good. Second, we can say that the rem-edy will act for a very long time. That means, if you have given a remedy that is constitutional, you can expect a relapse only after two, three, or four years. If your patient experiences an earlier relapse, you have to question what’s been going on in the case. Did they antidote the remedy? Was the remedy perhaps not exact? Other differentiating points may come up after that; but if your remedy is really constitutional, then the prognosis is nevertheless very good, because the remedy is clear and the duration of its action very long (over one year).
This theory in contrast with the theory of miasms, serves to explain why in one case only a single remedy is needed and repeated over several years, while other cases may require two or more remedies before we see the same results that we attained in other cases with just one remedy.
If we had had the opportunity to examine the case more closely or in greater detail, or if we had more information on the remedies themselves, we might have found that even in a typi-cal Phosphorus constitutional case there is the possibility that