Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[Resurrection Man]

Suppose that someone has cancer and is prescribed sugar pills on the NHS. The patient believes that they are helping him to get better. Does that make it acceptable to prescribe sugar pills?

Perhaps. One would hope that all treatment options were explained to the patient. Just because you (or others) don't think that homeopathy works, doesn't necessarily make it so. For my part, I also don't think that homeopathy works but, as ts has pointed out so many times, many people do. And for that reason I don't see why it shouldn't be available on the NHS.

[Flosshilde]

Do you think the NHS should use public money to provide artificial insemination for single women and lesbian couples, Flossie ... ?

This is not meant to be flippant but a serious question!

Artificial insemination is comparitively easy & can be done by anyone at home with simple equipment (a turkey baster for example) & many lesbians have done so, with no recourse to public funds. If you mean in-vitro fertilisation that's a different matter. My understanding is that it's used mainly by couples who have been unsuccessful in having children by the conventional method, and is a difficult procedure often undertaken in desperation, and at great expense. As for it being provided by the NHS, free, to anyone, I do have doubts.

Anyway, I fail to see what this has to do with the influence Charlie exerts (or tries to exert). Unless you think that, just as he had to have someone help him collect a urine sample, he needed help with

[Pabmusic]

Statistics must well know, to be treated carefully.nother equally valid set, (deaths per journey) it is one of the least safe. I accept the validity of those Wiki stats, but how
By one set of reliable statistics, air travel is the safest means of transport. But by awe use or interpret them is critical
Statistics need using carefully, and can, as we all know, be used to our disadvantage.

This sort of argument in relation to statistics often conceals an attempt to dismiss evidence entirely, or else to treat two or more possibilities as being of equal weight, when they are not. Statistics are facts. Assuming the research has been of acceptable quality, the statistics provide real evidence.

[Flosshilde]

That's just silly. We both know that tigers are endangered species. Bit like rational argument in this thread.

c.f. Scotty's posts.

[amateur51]

Perhaps. One would hope that all treatment options were explained to the patient. Just because you (or others) don't think that homeopathy works, doesn't necessarily make it so. For my part, I also don't think that homeopathy works but, as ts has pointed out so many times, many people do. And for that reason I don't see why it shouldn't be available on the NHS.

This way for the vinegar and brown paper

[teamsaint]

This sort of argument in relation to statistics often conceals an attempt to dismiss evidence entirely, or else to treat two or more possibilities as being of equal weight, when they are not. Statistics are facts. Assuming the research has been of acceptable quality, the statistics provide real evidence.

but that cuts both ways Pab, and as I said, they need to be used very carefully.
If I saw a reliable stat that said showed that the vast majority of people using NHS Homeopathy returned for conventional treatment, that would be hugely persuasive. I haven't seen such statistics. If they exist and are reliable, then that is fine.
Going back to VCs air travel stats, which are clear enough, is it safer to travel by air or bus? Its not clear to me at all from the stats, although I can draw certain conclusions.
Here are the stats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

Which demonstrates very nicely how we should be wary of, but not ignore, the statistical facts.

[Flosshilde]

This way for the vinegar and brown paper

No - that's only available to heterosexual couples (Jack and Jill went up the hill ...)

[amateur51]

No - that's only available to heterosexual couples (Jack and Jill went up the hill ...)

ah that's nature's way, y'see

[MrGongGong]

The NHS should provide the sorts of treatments that people want.

in short NO it's shouldn't
it should provide the treatments that WORK
not waste valuable resources on witchcraft


I also am self employed and had a life threatening condition , I had excellent treatment which stopped me dying ....... no help financially BUT compared to the alternative i'm happy (but much poorer in cash terms) .....

This is a classic case where the retail business model doesn't work.

[teamsaint]

Well we have to disagree, MrGG.
You had the great treatment that you deserved. I didn't.
The question of which treatments work, or are offered is a huge one, and the people who pay and use the service deserve a say, as they do in every other walk of life. A retail model has nothing at all to do with it.
There are plenty of conventional treatments offered which probably shouldn't be, (and which waste money to boot) for example oral retinoids to youngsters with mild skin conditions. The question about why that kind of treatment is offered is actually a lot more important than a discussion about homeopathy, on which the NHS actually spends very little.

[MrGongGong]

There are plenty of treatments offered which probably shouldn't be, for example oral retinoids to youngsters with mild skin conditions.

I'm sure there are but that's not really the point.
The consultant surgeon who did my operation has spent his whole life learning about a small niche of medicine so I would rather trust people with that amount of knowledge than some made up nonsense about dilution increasing the power etc

As said before, there's nothing wrong with ignorant folk spending their cash on sugar pills BUT to endorse this nonsense or even suggest that somehow it has legitimacy is very dangerous indeed.

It is a retail model to say that because you pay you should decide about the details.

[teamsaint]

Not talking about details, just about the principle that those who use and pay should have an input into the kinds of treatments offered.
That is different to a retail model.
people do indeed need to be well informed about homeopathy. They also need to be well informed about potentially dangerous conventional treatments like oral retinoids, for example, and they frequently aren't, and that is very dangerous.

[MrGongGong]

Not talking about details, just about the principle that those who use and pay should have an input into the kinds of treatments offered.
.

But they do
In my case I had three choices

1: Big operation with an excellent chance of complete recovery (but not without pain)
2: A life without moving about too much and hope to be ok (but probably die at a random moment and in agonising pain)
3: Carry on and die painfully at a random moment

I certainly didn't want to be offered

4: Wave a magic stick which will use the power of fairies to make everything better and align the chakras to co-incide with the setting sun on Glastonbury Tor at the equinox.........(and also suffer a painful death caused by internal bleeding at a random moment)

So I guess suffering and death are always inevitable BUT I think I made the right choice

It's fraudulent and dishonest to suggest that Homeopathy is an effective treatment, which is NOT to say that everything in "orthodox" medicine is wonderful.

[teamsaint]

It is your(and plenty of other peoples) opinions that homeopathy is as you say.
Lots of people , though, disagree with you, and I think they should have their opinions taken into account.It is a very substantial group of people after all.

Choice, input,call it what you will,is very important, whether at the personal or strategic level.

[Vile Consort]

Perhaps. One would hope that all treatment options were explained to the patient. Just because you (or others) don't think that homeopathy works, doesn't necessarily make it so. For my part, I also don't think that homeopathy works but, as ts has pointed out so many times, many people do. And for that reason I don't see why it shouldn't be available on the NHS.

Fine. But where do you stop. Chinese medicine? Traditional African medicine? Voodoo?

If "some people think it works" is to be the criterion, then surely these, too, should be available on the NHS. Would you be comfortable with that?