More and more people are becoming concerned about the effects of drugs, particularly in relation to children. There is an alternative in homoeopathy (Speight, 1983). Families need more options. Homoeopathy is a wonderful option because homoeopathic remedies are safe, cause no side effects or allergic reactions, and are inexpensive. They are easy to use because they taste good and above all, they are curative, not suppressive (Ullman, 1992). It was therefore necessary to determine the perception or perceptions towards homoeopathy as a treatment method and in terms of a primary health care option. The study population selected for this research is required to attend pre primary school in the Pinetown district. This district was chosen for the diversity in race, religion, and socio-economic factors, as well as the mixture of both rural and urban areas in this district. Purpose/Aim The purpose of this survey was to assess the perception, extent of knowledge and general understanding of as well as misconceptions about homoeopathy, including attitudes towards homoeopathy as a primary health care option in order to determine possible needs for homoeopathic services. The aim of this study is to develop and improve the knowledge and general understanding of homoeopathy and the perception towards the profession of iv homoeopathy amongst the general public by means of an information pamphlet (Appendix E). Methodology The research instrument used was a quantitative questionnaire (Appendix A), aimed at parents of children aged 3 to 7 years old in pre primary schools in the Pinetown district , as laid out by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education – map version 2 October 2007 (Appendix H and I) EduAction (2007). It was introduced to the principals of randomly selected (stratified random sampling method was used) pre primary schools (Appendix J) of the Pinetown district, and arrangements were made with those principals for distribution and collection of the completed questionnaires. The questionnaire was adapted from Moys, (1998) Small, (2005) Paruk, (2006) and Khoosal, (2007). Anonymity was maintained as no names, addresses or other information was required, thereby preventing identification of the respondents.