The following story by homeopathic practitioner Peter Berryman comes from his own experience.

Have you ever wondered how representatives of the Skeptic’s Association might attempt to conduct a ‘sting’ at your clinic? Here is a heads up for you.

Consider the following details which occurred at an appointment, made by a young woman, KS, and her Father, JS, who came to see me as a homeopath in Sydney in December 1997. JS subsequently used this experience to write an article, published in the Journal Skeptic.

The consultation

KS, a 21-year-old female university student, and her Father, JS, both arrived at the appointed time. I confirmed that KS was the intended client and clarified for her privacy whether she wanted her father to accompany her in the consulting room. She queried this point with her father and they mutually agreed that they both would like to be in the consulting room together, with me.

As is usual for all my new clients, I introduced the relevant procedures of a first consultation. This is done for their informed consent, which KS gave.

KS and JS then clarified that the reason for this appointment was to discuss their preventative health care options for KS’s intended overseas trip to Europe, due in April of the next year.

I then presented in detail, five different options of interventions that were relevant to KS and that are complementary to typical infection control and a traveller’s good common sense:

• the individualised homeopathic similimum
• a traveller’s homeopathic first aid kit, individualised for KS
• any relevant genus epidemicus medicines for medical dilemmas known to be in the area of intended travel
• the use of potentised nosodes of specific infectious diseases
• and lastly – a traveller’s conventional immunisation regimen.

This spectrum of choices was discussed so that KS alone could choose what she felt would best suit her, with my full support.

KS chose to proceed with the individualised homeopathic similimum option. I then outlined again the relevance of such a holistic prescription, to confirm that this fulfilled her choice for preventative health care. KS again confirmed her choice and consented to the following consultation, as to her health status, regarding:- any current health issues, physical health concerns, lifestyle impediments, environmental complications, psychological problems, personal medical history issues and any family medical history for precedence, etc.

KS, and JS, had very little response to these prompts, though JS behaved in an argumentative manner throughout this consultation. Usually these queries are used to enable a homeopath to individualise a client’s state, or promote questions regarding further investigations, if relevant or necessary.

Our conclusion was that KS was currently in good health, probably quite sufficient to sustain her through her intended overseas journey, so no prescription of any intervention was required, above common sense. She agreed to reflect on all these issues in her own time and to contact me again if she needed to reconsider any of the points raised.

The whole consulting process took over half an hour. Her account for my professional services rendered was immediately settled and KS and JS appeared happy as they departed my clinic.

Comment

Interestingly, in the article published in Skeptic, their only criticism was that I did not conduct a physical examination of the client. I teach physical examination and a thorough head to toe exam could easily have taken another half an hour. As KS had no complaints to warrant an examination, no over-servicing was performed.