Dr. Shirish K. Phansalkar M.D. (Hom), M.I.C.R.
Trustee MLD Trust and Director, ICR Branch, Pune
Homoeopathy is a medical science but practiced as an Art! This is what classical Homoeopathic teachers from Hahnemann’s time till today have repeatedly demonstrated. We had a very logical Boenninghausen and an equally artistic Kent. Then we had a very pathologically grounded Boger and in the recent past, a deeply intuitive Whitmont who divined the unconscious and the hidden conflicts of the patient and of the remedy as well!
India has had its share of both. Bengal, home to Homoeopathy, produced the legendary Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar and Dr. Pratap Chandra Majumdar, with a formidable reputation as quick prescribers using their sixth sense to size up a patient to magically deliver a cure! And we come across the venerable Dr. Diwan Jai Chand and Dr. Laxman Dhawale, allopathically trained from Delhi and Mumbai respectively, utilizing their medical training and adopting the classical, time-tested methods-no short cuts! Independent India yearned to break fresh ground in health care and it was the likes of Dr. Jai Chand and Dr. Dhawale who convinced the fledgling Central Govt that Homoeopathy deserved a place in the sun! It assented but neglected substantial support through providing employment and supporting education. As a result, Homoeopathy remained in the shadows and so did its practitioners.
Dr. M. L. Dhawale after his MD (Medicine) trained under his father, Dr. L. D. Dhawale, a much-revered teacher of Medicine and Paediatrics who had earned the reputation – ‘as a diagnostician, he had few rivals’. Dr. Mitrachandra was an astute learner and picked up much from his illustrious father, not about Homoeopathy alone but also academic organization and clinical administration as he had served on National bodies advising the government about Homoeopathy. He soon took over the teaching of post-graduate Homoeopathy from his father and revamped it to align with the clinical advances. After jointly completing the Marathi book on Homoeopathy with his father, he launched on what was to be his masterpiece, Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy, Volume I. Its release catapulted him on the international stage and into the Principal’s chair at Bombay Homoeopathic Medical College which he occupied for just a little more than a year. The brief time was enough to convince him as what ailed homoeopathic education.
In a nutshell, Homoeopathic education had aligned with the Allopathic pattern and lost sight of its distinctive roots. The Homoeopath had to know the individual patient and the manner in which a particular medicine was the right ‘fit’ for him. At the same time he must know the nature of the illness/es and how these were moulded by his individuality. And he had to learn all this in an Institutional setting. So we must evolve a Standard way of teaching the Individualized way of practising Homoeopathy. He coined a catchy term ‘Standardization of Individualization’.
Dr. Dhawale as a clinician understood that success in practice lay in getting results. These follow when Principles are aligned to Practice. Demonstration of the results and the process will convince a novice that Homoeopathy works. In reality, Philosophy and Practice were far apart! The gap had to be eliminated to get results. His surmised that exposing the student to a sound action-result complex would automatically ensure efficient learning. And here he encountered an obstacle.
Students who observed his functioning tried to ape him and failed! They had not developed the formidable logical framework that he had after working under his father who was a hard taskmaster. The educationist in him now set about reflecting on his own mental processes which enable him to perceive the patient, erect the totality and prescribe. Unravelling his own thought processes and reasoning helped him to evolve the Standardized Case Record, an instrument which documented the actions of the physician. He devised a number of supporting educational forms to help the learner to better analyze and understand his own thinking and feeling, since the latter influenced the final action in a meaningful way. Hahnemann’s recommendation of becoming an ‘unprejudiced observer’ was an essential step in the process.
Reflecting on his own life and living and that of others – his teachers, patients and public personalities (he was an avid reader), the philosopher became active. He realized that Learning can occur only through Doing and can be imbibed widely through Sharing. The learner undergoes this process repeatedly initially in small groups steadily progressing into a larger setting. Self-Evaluation allowed reflection and space for the learning to sink in, the process aided by the facilitator who himself had gone through the process. In this way, Practice made Actions Perfect. He desired that the learners should be exposed to a number of such Right Actions (well-treated, evidence based cases presented in an open, transparent way) will enable refinement of Thinking and Feeling. ICR Symposia held four times a year in his lifetime ensured that the stage was available for all who wished to learn-by sharing their clinical experiences and participating responsibly (after working through the case material) in the ensuing discussion.
All of the above was shared with the profession in 1978 in the illuminating ICR Symposium on Hahnemannian Totality. His further journey found expression in the Action Learning Conference of 1984 to mark the Centenary of Dr. L. D. Dhawale. This saw the unification of all the three aspects and interestingly, he penned a paper “How and Why of Good Results” for the Conference.
How to develop a sensitive, sensible homoeopathic physician capable of delivering good results through the use of modern educational technology has been his unique contribution to the profession. He deepened this by insisting that acquiring and refining Knowledge should go hand-in-hand with the process of caring and teaching. His path-breaking research in the Homoeopathic management of Leprosy with Dr. Dilip Dikshit allowed the unearthing of the hither-to unknown potential of Homoeopathy. That it could reverse hitherto irreversible structural changes in the nerves and the skin was a revelation! Numerous later writings featured in Perceiving 1 give us his vision of how Homoeopathic research should be organized in contrast to the ruling paradigm of the Gold standard of Randomized Controlled Trials. This was the culmination of his effort to not let the allopathic bias from filtering into Homoeopathy.
He stitched together all the three strands in his concept of Tri-co-ordinate Care emphasizing that all three competencies were essential for the full growth of the professional and the profession.
We started by speaking of the Science and the Art of Homoeopathy. Little did we know the existence of the poet in our Guru. It came to light in 1978 in his memorable ‘Ode to Hahnemann’ reminding one of the magnum opus “Savitri” by Sri Aurobindo. Later he was to pen “Life and Living” – a unique blend of Philosophy, Clinical experience and Poetry so feelingly illustrated by Shri Ratnakar Sohoni.
We have seen the extraordinary breadth and depth of his work in all facets of Homoeopathy. He attempted to bring Homoeopathy on par with modern medicine and take it beyond. We can see the vast potential benefits of this to the community when we now speak of Evidence based and Personalized Medicine in one breath. We owe that unified perspective to his vision and work. The road map he set is admittedly difficult to walk on. We can always attempt to achieve it through collective vision and action.
