(Papers of the Transnational Conference: "THE HOMOEOPATIC REMEDY-NON-MEDICINE. A PROPOSAL FOR RECOGNITION" - Rome 12th and 13th december 1988).

The Round Table is over; the interventions on the side of the public, quite numerous, have, as always, brought in discussions of remarkable interest; it would thus be very useful to recover the contribution of each. The moderator cannot thus for mere reasons of time but deepen certain aspects.

First of all that of the necessary decantation in the confrontation among the various Homoeopathic Schools. I am an allopath and am therefore not responsible for this kind of debate, but as moderator of a round table wich has faced these subjects, I invite the ones of you who represent the various Homoeopathic Schools to this meeting-encounter-confrontation; especially at times such as the present, de jure condendo, as recalled by Professor Ventre, certain differences must find a confluence in a legislative text. As regards university access, I must mention two positions:

a) with the new discipline, after law 382/80, there are four

likely levels: the degree course, the special aims school,

the specialization school and the perfectioning course; thus

the former "culture courses" have no right to exist in

universities and must probably be placed within the up-dating

courses, organized by the Order of Doctors, by the USL

(National Health Centres) or even by private training

centres, just as the course carried out in Catania mentioned

in the meeting.

b) Doctor Kennedy rightly recalled that the list of speciali-

zation schools by the EEC does not consider a specialization

in Homoeopathy and it is thus necessary to promote an

initiative at EEC in order to make integration possible.

Another point to be underlined is the judgement as regards

the strategies of the laboratories for homoeopathic products;

this judgement has been confirmed by other interventions at

the present meeting. I also wish to emphasize the second

last intervention of the colleaugue from Milan regarding the

"short out" used by the homoeopathic doctor (which he defined

"second class") who relies on the pluri-prescription of the

remedy in order not to waste time.

Lastly, I would like to mention the intervention of the representative of the International Bureau for the Medical Art stating that the Censis 1983 report, nased on research carried out in 15 Italian cities 1982 and 1983, regarding traditiona, conventional and alternative medicine divided it into the following parts: agopuncture, argillo-therapy, bio-feed-back, biorythmology, chiropractice, macrobiotics, electroagopuncture, electrotherapy, phytotherapy, hypnosis, hydrotheraphy, musicotherapy, homoeopathy, reflexotherapy, autogeneous training, vegetarism and yoga, and as regards non-organized, non-structured services, antroposophy, auriculartherapy, ayurvedhic medicine, chromosotherapy, healers, iridology, hatha-yoga, massage of the feet, pranotherapy.

I do not believe that the entire situation of therapeutic medicine may be faced in a Meeting though I agree that the situation is very complicated and that the subject of the Meeting "de jure condendo" must not be forgotten as rightly stated by Professor Ventre saying that this Meeting rightly regards the regulation of the Homoeopathic Remedy.

I thank the Parlamentary that have intervened and all the people that have participated in this debate, and the promotores of the meeting to close up I state "The most important thing for a doctor is to cure the sick",

It's a phrase by Hahnemann in his book Organon (first paraghaph as Prof. Negro remembers) if we unite this request with "nihil nocere" of the Salernitan School, believe we can help not to block the discorse of defence of health.