He's got an article and a letter in The Pharmaceutical Journal
The article is "Is it ethical for pharmacists to sell unproven or disproven medicines?" and the letter is here.
Editorial is here.
If I get time this week I'll see if I can borrow a login to peek at the comments
Very interesting.
I’ve posted the link to this thread here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105449
The Welsh Pharmacist needs all the support he can get!
The PJ site is also running a poll with the very clear question:
Only 40 replies so far but 38% have said yesIs it ethical to sell homoeopathic or other remedies that have no evidence base to support their effectiveness
Then again the largest share of alt-med is for the worried well. If they're getting their magic pills from a pharmacy there's a chance any actual problems could be spotted.Originally Posted by Acleron
The PJ site is also running a poll with the very clear question:
Only 40 replies so far but 38% have said yes
Obviously my main bit of wishful thinking is to see all of these 'remedies' undergo the same tests and trials for efficacy as modern drugs...
Is that true? On the JRef forum, more than one homeopath has claimed that they supply to people unable to afford proper medicine.
This, I really doubt. These preparations are kept on open shelves in the main part of the shop. The only contact with the pharmacy will be with a sales assistant.
Agreed.
In general, they have been tested and shown to be ineffective. The homeopath's response to the call for testing at least to the level of newly released drugs is as inconsistent as their methodology.
Answers to that question I have seen include:-
We don't need it, we know it works.
It has been tested millions of times and found to work.
Yes, but the government, pharmaceutical industry, academia etc must pay for it because we cannot afford it.
Science cannot test it because it is outside the realm of science and gold standard tests are invalid in this case.
I believe most of them serve countries without a nationalised health service.
People will see probably check with their pharmacist if it's a new symptom and\or if they already have a bunch of regular medicines. I can only offer anecdotal evidence but one of the pharmacists ran the dispensary in on of the large supermarket chains, when they moved the homeopathic remedies next to the counter the sales dropped by a third - people were asking the Pharmacists and getting honest answers.This, I really doubt. These preparations are kept on open shelves in the main part of the shop. The only contact with the pharmacy will be with a sales assistant.
Yeah, if they weren't so predictable it'd be funnyAgreed.
In general, they have been tested and shown to be ineffective. The homeopath's response to the call for testing at least to the level of newly released drugs is as inconsistent as their methodology.
Answers to that question I have seen include:-
We don't need it, we know it works.
It has been tested millions of times and found to work.
Yes, but the government, pharmaceutical industry, academia etc must pay for it because we cannot afford it.
Science cannot test it because it is outside the realm of science and gold standard tests are invalid in this case.
Yes, that's correct.
What did they do, move the preparations away or change the pharmacist?
Move the preparations and a stern Memo about changing the stock layout
Next visit to the chemist must remember to pick the drugs nearest to the pharmacist.
Or you could just ask themNext visit to the chemist must remember to pick the drugs nearest to the pharmacist.
It's now hit the press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ts.homeophathy
(Thanks to Mojo over at JREF for spotting it.)
Some snippets from the comment section
However you cannot throw 200 years of knowledge and literature out of the window just because modern testing techniques do not work
Through undergraduate and postgraduate training, pharmacists are taught to apply scientific evidence, which in the case of homoeopathy can be lacking, inconclusive or ambiguous. Pharmacists are also taught clinical judgement based upon the clinical need, choice and belief systems of the individual patient.
Pharmacists endeavour to provide optimal clinical treatment with the minimal adverse effects to their patients and, at the same time, respect the role individual patients plays in deciding upon their own treatment. Rather than argue around any ethical dilemma of the pharmacist we believe it is now time for all homoeopathic medicines to be regulated by the MHRA and the Society welcomes Professor Ernst’s comments in raising this important and unresolved debate.If over-the-counter products were subjected to a similar demand for evidence of effectiveness in the form and strengths available, pharmacy shelves would be far less crowded, starting with the cough and cold section.Edzard Ernst states there is little or no evidence to support homoeopathy and complementary therapies (PJ, 19 July 2008, p69). There are thousands of trials that show that homoeopathy is better than placebo, but these are ignored.
If it is unethical to supply medicines that have not been scientifically proven, should I refuse to dispense selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as they have recently been shown to be of no greater value than placebo for mild depression (PJ, 1 March 2008, p235)? And how about aspirin or amoxicillin or other effective drugs that have not been clinically trialled?By offering for sale homeopathic and other unregulated products the profession offers a legitamacy to this area which it does not deserve. Friendly words are used like "alternative medicine" and "complimentary medicine" which suggests to the consumer that they are purchasing something purporting to be a medication. In the vast majority of cases this is not true. It would be closer to the truth to call them "improbable therapies"It wouldn't be complete without an Indian homeopathGiving a homoeopathic prescription is something that should not be taken lightly and it is not like giving paracetamol for a headache. There are hundreds if not thousands for prescriptions that could be indicated and therefore a prescription should be chosen carefully. As to the evidence, well evidence based medicine has only come about recently, whereas homoeopathy has been around for hundreds of years. Even today we do not know how all our drugs work, e.g. the full mechanism of paracetamol is not known, but we know it works.
On the whole it's a fairly depressing comments section that leans to "Neutral/in favour" with a handful of the standard alt-med canards thrown in for good measure. I take a bit of heart in the fact that the commenter's are a self selected group and that alt-med practitioners and supporters tend towards 'grass-roots' campaigns, that and the pharmacists in general are a bit lethargic this year - this years council voting had an appallingly low turnout.
"‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’" Edmund Burke a teensy bit melodramatic but true nonetheless, especially when you're dealing with peoples health.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks