It is always said that case taking is at least half of the work and it is true. When an interview is well done, the vital disturbance should be clear or at least the expressions of the disturbance should give a coherent pattern. In an ideal situation only one or a few remedies are left to prescribe.
Although every homeopath has his personal style, there are nevertheless some guidelines to help the homeopath navigate the interview. When we are focused on the vital disturbance, our questioning should be aimed at getting us to Level Five, if possible. If this is not possible, then we should be able to perceive expressions of the Level Five disturbance on all the other levels.
If the homeopath knows exactly what he is looking for, he won’t get lost on the way. With the Vital Approach it is always possible to determine on which level we are, and whether we have information relating to the kingdom or miasm. Before the Vital Approach, the homeopath often got lost in the sheer bulk of information. It was difficult to determine which information was qualitative and which was more quantitative. In that situation there is a tendency to refer to keynotes or important features. The disadvantage of this is that we all have many characteristics, which are covered by many remedies. These remedies will all affect the expression or symptoms but which won’t cure the source of the problem.
Every patient is different but there are some general rules that should be followed.
Long experience in practice has led me to conclude that the patient will always take you where the treasure is hidden. I’d like to stress this because it is so important. The patient will define the territory and all the homeopath must do is dig there for the right remedy. If we ask questions and by doing so direct the patient, then we’ve lost this crucial help. We will define the topics and the patient will answer our questions because he thinks this is the information we need to know in order to prescribe. As a result we will have collected information that suits our prejudices and we will have ‘made a case’ instead of ‘receiving’ one. The first method almost always leads to remedies we know and feel comfortable with, the latter can lead us anywhere! We can trust and follow the path the patient is taking us, because we know he will lead us precisely where we need to go.
This is so important that I cannot repeat it enough. The patient leads us by the choice of topics and the way that he reveals them to us. All we have to do is willingly follow him in any direction he is taking us. In this way he defines the territory and we can be absolutely sure it is there that we will find the remedy; we don’t need to inquire about any other area! We might so inquire at the end to confirm the remedy (or kingdom/miasm/source) but it will only be confirmation.