Reply With QuoteIs anyone actively campaigning against this astonishingly stupid decision?
Martin Robbins makes the same point
You get a sense of this confusion very early on, with lines like: "given the geographical, socioeconomic and cultural diversity in England, [policy on homeopathy] involves a whole range of considerations including, but not limited to, efficacy." I actually have no idea what this means – do medicines work differently in Norfolk from the way they work in Hampshire? The report doesn't elaborate.
Is anyone actively campaigning against this astonishingly stupid decision?
Anyone optimistic there will be an educational campaign? It seemed to be what was implied in the report, with informed choices mentioned a lot...
Originally Posted by asthmatic camel
I don't know if there are any plans to challenge this decision but if the evidence check committee recommended that homeopathy be removed from the NHS because it doesn't work and the government still refuse to do so then I can't see what else can be done.
The problem, as far as I can see, is that homeopathy is too small an issue. Yes there's often heated exchanges between homeopaths/believers and skeptics at various levels but as a social issue I really don't think anyone (Joe Public) really gives two hoots about homeopathy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people still hadn't heard of it.
In many ways, I think that trying to educate people about homeopathy simply ends up raising the profile of homeopathy - raising public awareness might just increase demand: the problem of unintended consequences!
I guess if there's one area where some pressure could be applied it's with the "local National Health Service and clinicians". If these are the people who will be spending taxpayers' money on homeopathy then they are the ones who should be justifying their decisions.Ms Milton said the Government welcomed the MPs' report but "remain of the view that the local National Health Service and clinicians are best placed to make decisions on what treatment is appropriate for their patients".
.
I submitted scrapping homeopathy on the NHS as an idea on the government's spending challenge site. Probably a waste of time but better than doing nothing.
That's fun!
I proposed keeping it and added ear candling, cow urine, breatharianism and iridology as being equally efficacious.
Yes, point taken.
I can imagine it being a useful placebo for patients deemed best served by one. I'm sure we'd all agree it would be far better to explore ways of using placebo ethically without enabling quacks to promote bad science and make money out of it.
Frustrating. It looked and felt like a victory. Hopefully not all momentum and enthusiasm will be lost...
If the NHS are going to use or prescribe placebos why should we settle for homeopathy?
Surely it would be even cheaper, and possibly more effective, to pretend the placebo pills were actually real medicine rather than alternative.
Why bother wasting time manufacturing remedies by putting them through the homeopathic rituals of endless dilution whilst supposedly shaking and spanking some effect into them?
Yes, there's an ethical issue of lying to patients but surely, if the NHS is using homeopathy as a cheap placebo, that's lying to patients too!
I'm not sure the placebo argument stands up to scrutiny either. Or perhaps homeopathy is actually seen as one way of prescribing placebos without (apparently) breaking ethical guidelines?
.
Politics and ethics! Now I am confused.
*SHRUG* Acupuncture is routinely used as a therapy at our local NHS addiction clinic, and the therapists appear to genuinely believe it's some kind of miracle cure. Unsurprisingly, the same people actively promote Reiki, Reflexology and the like as effective treatments, (although I don't think these are available on prescription.)
Quote. "Reiki, yes; it's an energy thing."
It's enough to drive you to drink.
Sound idea. Alcohol is definitely good for you. I read it somewhere.
Anyone suggesting confirmation bias will be ignored.
Last edited by smudge; 30th July 2010 at 09:37 AM. Reason: my usual stupidity
That is a really interesting question and one that I have pondered too. I just don't like it. I had a brush with AT (told I was a healer in my religious phase) and this opened to me how easy it is to convince the vulnerable who need attention that they "had an illness" and are now "cured".
I have read that (no reference, sorry, possibly in "Trick or Treatment") that proscribing placebo with these sort of words:
"this pill has no known medical effect, but some people find it helps them and we don't understand why"
works. Surely this is an ethical way to dispense placebo - you could even ask
"Which colour would you like?"or follow the researched colours for different illnesses.
Maybe '...some people claim it helps them...'?
I think 'find' could be read as there being some kind of outside confirmation that the placebo really was doing something specific.
Presumably a major ethical question is how to present a placebo without risking someone actually avoiding taking a known working treatment for any serious condition?
If there's medical support for homeopathy for some minor conditions, how easy is it to prevent people taking that as a suggestion it might work for serious conditions?
At least with a GP quietly prescribing multicoloured chalk tablets, the GP knows that they don't have any active ingredients, and they can make sure that someone who actually needs active medication is prescribed it, rather than being misled by the placebo.
Totally agree. There is a very good episode in the Skeptoid podcast that discusses whether he should become an alternative therapist since in his brand he would say that his therapy only worked in conjunction with normal medicine.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4003
Hi, I'm new. I've only just found out that homeopathic "medicine" is water. I didn't subscribe to it anyway but now I discover that it's prescribed to people, I am a bit shocked.
Glad I watched "Enemies of Reason" by Dawkins. He said it all for me.
john
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks