If only the debate were really over

[MrGongGong]

Just to point out that the NHS budget homeopathy is a tiny £4m out of more than £100 Bn. That is 0.004%.

There are some things that I object to being paid for with NHS money that cost a lot more than £4 m, I expect.

And the many people who do believe in it, including sizeable numbers of medical professionals, also pay in their share of tax.

Money isn't the point (again)

"sizeable numbers" ?

Like this wonderful doctor? (Would YOU trust her?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjjJIqAMFUw&spfreload=10

[french frank]

Why don't people try to narrow the discussion down to what exactly people agree and disagree with.

Most (not all) of this debate is hot air.

[teamsaint]

ever had conventional treatment which made something worse, and been offered and refused homeopathy, ( by a well thought of GP, who apparently should be struck off), which would , at worst, have had no effect?

I have.

[teamsaint]

Money isn't the point (again)

"sizeable numbers" ?

Like this wonderful doctor? (Would YOU trust her?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjjJ...w&spfreload=10

It is ( part of) the point.
people who vehemently disagree with Homeopathy consistently point to the cost to the NHS.

[MrGongGong]

It is ( part of) the point.
people who vehemently disagree with Homeopathy consistently point to the cost to the NHS.

Surely the point is that the NHS shouldn't legitimise faith healing?

[MrGongGong]

Why don't people try to narrow the discussion down to what exactly people agree and disagree with.

Most (not all) of this debate is hot air.

Well if people read the article at the start
it would suggest that the "debate" is over

[teamsaint]

Well if people read the article at the start
it would suggest that the "debate" is over

perhaps they did.

I did.
Debate is a good thing, I thought.

[MrGongGong]

perhaps they did.

I did.
Debate is a good thing, I thought.

Always?

Sometimes it just creates confusion and insecurity

[ahinton]

That is one thing. Another (which PGT seems not to take into account) is that though they may do no harm in themselves, believing in them as a substitute for scientific medicine will obviously lead to treatable conditions going untreated, which certainly is harmful.

That is precisely the point; the fact that some £4m is spent on it by NHS is hardly the most significant concern here, although even that comparatively small amount still represents funds that could far more usefully be spent by NHS on treatment that can work and be proved to have worked. One problem with the first part of this is that patients who subject themselves to homœopathic "treatment" more often than not do so instead of having "conventional" medical treatment rather than in conjunction therewith, which is why their treatable conditions risk going untreated, as you write.

[french frank]

Always?

Sometimes it just creates confusion and insecurity

[Richard Barrett]

It depends on what part of the debate you're talking about... is homeopathy medicine? no, there seems no point in debating that. Should it be available on the NHS? no, it isn't medicine, so there'd be no reason to make it available on the NHS, however cheap it is. Should GPs who prescribe it be struck off? I guess if they do it as in teamsaint's case when everything else has been tried, they couldn't be said to be positively harming their patients by substituting quackery for science, so I guess it depends.

Why do some people still believe in it? is the question I find most interesting. I guess there are some people (see MrGG's moon landing deniers) who will believe anything.

[french frank]

Also, if the possible "risk factor" is the reason from preventing 'believers' from accessing such treatments exactly the same argument can be made against conventional medicine.

That's an interesting an interesting line to pursue.

Some questions I'm not clear on:

Do general NHS medical staff ever volunteer the suggestion of a homoeopathic remedy to a patient who turns up with a complaint/condition/disease?

When such remedies are offered on the NHS, what is the route by which this happens?

[teamsaint]

That's an interesting an interesting line to pursue.

Some questions I'm not clear on:

Do general NHS medical staff ever volunteer the suggestion of a homoeopathic remedy to a patient who turns up with a complaint/condition/disease?

When such remedies are offered on the NHS, what is the route by which this happens?

I was offered homeopathic treatment by a GP for my " not very serious but a year is long enough" swollen knee.

I honestly can't remember if he offered a referral, or a prescription, but he did it without me asking for it. I think ,IIRC, I said I didn't want to try anti inflammatory drugs first, (as he suggested trying a tight bandage, which as it turned out made it much worse almost immediately,)but I definitely didn't ask for homeopathy, or an "altenative" therapy.

[Pabmusic]

...The only real point is that if others believe in the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments why should others interfere like an interfering, overbearing Nanny?...

I'm OK with people doing what they like with their own health, except:

[1] Where in exercising that right they interfere with others' rights not to share it, or be affected by it or its consequences;

[2] Where state funds are diverted into schemes that have no evidential basis (and this does not mean anecdotal evidence) other than as placebos;

[3] Where items are sold as effective when there's no empirical evidence for it;

[4] Where homeopathic treatment interferes with conventional medicine.

In 1969, Kenneth Horne collapsed and died while he was compering the Baftas. He had been presribed anticoagulants following a stroke and heart attack some years before, but had been persuaded by a faith healer to stop taking them and undergo 'alternative treatment'. The faith healer's advice has been heavily criticised over the years (beginning with the coroner's inquest). Quite rightly too.

..Also, if the possible "risk factor" is the reason from preventing 'believers' from accessing such treatments exactly the same argument can be made against conventional medicine...

Not really, since conventional medicine should be backed up by evidence of its efficacy and risks. In order for that to be so with homeopathy there would have to be positive research papers. There aren't.

[MrGongGong]

I was offered homeopathic treatment by a GP for my " not very serious but a year is long enough" swollen knee.

I honestly can't remember if he offered a referral, or a prescription, but he did it without me asking for it. I think ,IIRC, I said I didn't want to try anti inflammatory drugs first, (as he suggested trying a tight bandage, which as it turned out made it much worse almost immediately,)but I definitely didn't ask for homeopathy, or an "altenative" therapy.

I think you maybe need to find another GP