Apology: "Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts"

[onewheeldave]

You keep repeating that the users of homeopathic treatments have funded the costs of these treatments from the taxes they have paid. What you have not considered is the opportunity cost of funding homeopathy on the NHS. i.e. every pound spent on homeopathy is a pound not spent on conventional medicine.

 

Your system would only be fair and equitable if homeopathy enthusiasts, who insist they have covered their treatment costs through their taxes, are denied access to conventional medicine which they do not fund. I don't think you'd find as many takers if that were the case.

 

Those wishing for homeopathy to remain on the NHS are perfectly aware that money spent on homeopathy cannot be spent on conventional treatment- they're happy with that. It's obvious that money spent on one thing can't be also spent on another.

 

They choose to want a small portion of the overall budget to be used to represent their wish to access homeopathy.

 

I see no reason why a person should be denied conventional treatments because they wish some of their money (via taxes) to fund a treatment (homeopathy) which they have chosen to make use of.

 

Many of those who use homeopathic remedies, will also use conventional ones, indeed, they will be perfectly aware that for some conditions, conventional treatments are clearly superior.

[Cyclone]

Once again, they would be disregarding the wished of the patient to choose themselves whether they wish to use homeopathy, rather than nothing, or a placebo.

The patients do not pay for their treatment via taxes. We all pay taxes, non of it is allocated against specific funding for specific things for individuals. If it were I'd like to ask for a refund on my portion of NHS taxation as I haven't used their services in quite a few years. Clearly something I can't do.

 

So given that we all pay and that resources are limited, patient choice has to be restricted in order to provide the best service and value for money.

[onewheeldave]

The patients do not pay for their treatment via taxes. We all pay taxes, non of it is allocated against specific funding for specific things for individuals. If it were I'd like to ask for a refund on my portion of NHS taxation as I haven't used their services in quite a few years. Clearly something I can't do.

 

So given that we all pay and that resources are limited, patient choice has to be restricted in order to provide the best service and value for money.

 

I mainly mention the tax thing in reply to those who say that homeopathy should not be available on the NHS and that those who want it should have to pay for it.

 

The response is that they already do pay for it, via their taxes.

 

You can say what you want about the tax system and the impossibility of refunds etc, but the (undeniable) fact remains that those who wish to have the choice to access homeopathy on the NHS, already do fund it.

[Cyclone]

I agree with those people. The fact that you pay tax and that tax funds the NHS does not give you carte blanche to demand treatments which are a waste of money and ineffective. Doctors decide what treatment is appropriate, and quackery never is, particularly expensive quackery.

[John1954]

Those wishing for homeopathy to remain on the NHS are perfectly aware that money spent on homeopathy cannot be spent on conventional treatment- they're happy with that. It's obvious that money spent on one thing can't be also spent on another.

 

They choose to want a small portion of the overall budget to be used to represent their wish to access homeopathy.

 

I see no reason why a person should be denied conventional treatments because they wish some of their money (via taxes) to fund a treatment (homeopathy) which they have chosen to make use of.

 

Your funding argument is illogical. As Cyclone pointed out, taxes are not hypothecated, but for the sake of your argument let's assume they are.

 

I wish for 100% of my NHS tax allocation to go to conventional medicine and I would like access to 100% of conventional treatments. For those who want a percentage of their NHS tax allocation to go to homeopathy, which conventional treatments should they be denied?

 

Many of those who use homeopathic remedies, will also use conventional ones, indeed, they will be perfectly aware that for some conditions, conventional treatments are clearly superior.

 

So which conditions are conventional treatments not superior?

[milquetoast1]

The people providing the cash should have at least some say in how that money is spent.

 

A lot of the people who use homeopathy and who want to continue to have it available on the NHS, do not care that there is no conclusive proof that it works.

 

While, to people like you, that may seem irrational, it is, regardless, the choice they make and, IMO, a choice they are entitled to.

 

Let's be clear here- many of these people are unconcerned that homeopathy is scientifically unproven- they still wish to have the right to choose to use it (on the NHS) and, they contribute a significant portion of the funds that make the NHS possible in the first place.

 

But you don't soley fund the NHS, we all do.

 

And, a significant portion of those who do fund it, wish to have homeopathic remedies availabe.

 

Let's guess a figure of say, 1% of the taxed population wish homeopathy to be available on the NHS and, guessing a second figure of say 0.01% of the NHS budget being allocated to homeopathic remedies- I'd argue that that's fair.

 

What seems unfair is a situation where you, get to decide what their money is allowed to be spent on.

 

The logic being applied here by onewheeldave, that NHS spending should be based on popular demand, irrespective of effectiveness, is simply staggering.

 

We could poll the population on a number of things that we think the NHS should supply:

 

18% might think that the hayfever oral pill should be supplied, 5% might think that breast enhancements should be supplied, 25% might think that lenses should be supplied to correct eyesight, 48% might think eye tests should be free, 37% might think that prostate cancer screening should be supplied, 23% might think free dental checks are supplied, 14% might think unlimited IVF should be supplied etc etc etc

 

You could easily reach 5000% public support for all sorts of things that the NHS doesn't supply, but the taxpayers want. Apportioning NHS spending based on popular demand would be lunacy.

[milquetoast1]

That's certainly the modern process.

Sometimes though, alternative medicine is alternative because no large pharm company has investigated the affects or isolated the compounds that work in a particular remedy.

Many herbal remedies are based on real affects, willow tree bark for example, did it lead to the discovery of aspirin or does it contain a very similar chemical, one or the other.

Having read Bad Science recently, Ben Goldacre's main criticism of the multi-billion pound alternative medicine industry is simply that they don't bother to do the investigations. Most of them remain "alternative" because those that profit from them are not interested in spending a small amount of their vast profits on actually proving if they work or not.

 

"Big Pharma" might be far from perfect, on occasion it might even lie or bend the rules, but at least the industry does undertake research which is available for scientific scrutiny.

[onewheeldave]

I assume by "conventional medicine" you mean "medicine" - it's a kind of trick that crank medicine proponents use to try and make it and "alternative medicine" sound like they are somehow related. In reality, homoeopathy is not in the slightest related to medicine.

 

 

 

Your assumption is correct, by 'conventional medicine' (or 'orthodox medicine') I am referring to the non-alternative medicines typically available on the NHS.

 

I will however, continue to use the terms 'alternative medicine' and refer to homeopathy as medicine- personally i do not consider such usage as a 'trick'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, it is not "orthodox medical science" it is "medical science". And it has already been pointed out that they can have very serious consequences (like people dying because they didn't seek actual medical help).

 

 

I did answer that point some posts back- it's not possible, according to conventional medical science, for anyone to be harmed by a homeopathic remedy, as, scientifically speaking, there is no active ingredient in it.

 

Of course, someone could refuse a conventional treatment which may (may- no guarantees) have cured them and then suffer progression of the illness and die.

 

In that case, they died because they refused a treatment which may have saved them- not because they took a homeopathic remedy.

 

To make this clear, lets take a case where a person has a illness that, if they take a conventional remedy, will be cured. Let's suppose that they do take that conventional remedy, but, simultaneously, also use homeopathy.

 

I think you'll agree that, in that case, they will not die- clearly the homeopahtic remedy itself does no harm.

 

What leads to their death, in these cases, is their choice to deny themselves the conventional treatment, and, no doubt unfortunately in your eyes, we do still have a fundamental human right to refuse medical treatments (assuming soundness of mind).

 

Of course, that's a vast oversimplification- for many serious diseases (many cancers for example), there are no guarantees with conventional treatments- many patients endure truly horrific bouts of surgery, chemical and radiation therapies, yet still die.

 

Equally, some patients decide against the 'life at all costs' approach and instead choose their own approach to life and death.

 

Often that is a mixture of alternative remedies, along with whatever conventional treatments they feel they can believe in, or tolerate.

 

Like many cancer patients, they will die- they just prefer to do so on their own terms, choosing their own treatments.

 

They know that, ultimately, we are all dying, and, in their eyes, the ways we choose to live and die and more important that eking out every last desperate breathe, just so we can endure to the very end.

 

It's easy for the 'rationalists' to cherry pick sensationalist examples of gullible ill people who've fallen victim to charletons, died horrible deaths which may ('may'- there are no guarantees with these illnesses) have been curable conventionally- then plaster these stories on web pages and then try to tar all alternative practitioners with the same brush.

 

Just the kind of sensationalism that, traditionally, the 'rationalists' are quick to condemn when the boots on the other foot

 

But, the fact is, a lot of those who do doubt some aspects of conventional medicine and utilise various alternative medicines, are every bit as intelligent and rational as you.

 

It's all about choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except of course the infection might still be there and recur at some point in the future, whereas the antibiotics will destroy it totally.

 

 

No, with many of these minor infections, they will clear up fully- the human immune system is quite capable of sorting them out without assistance.

 

Which is why doctors made an active effort to cut down on dispensing anti-biotics in these cases.

 

No only, in the eyes of conventional medical science, was there no point, but, it was becoming apparent that it was damaging the efficacy of antibiotics in those cases where they were actually necessary, as the more antibiotics were used, the more diseases would adapt and become resistant to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes of course - ever heard of the Hippocratic oath? Doctors are duty bound to try and make a patient better - this means overruling the patient when the patient wants something that the doctor knows is not going to help. Patients do not have the right under the NHS to choose their treatment (other than sometimes when they are asked whether they would rather do A, B or C)

 

 

Patients do not have the right under the NHS to choose their treatments !?!?!

 

Wow! I knew there was a lack of respect for patient choice, never realised it was official policy though

 

Thing with those patients who like to think for themselves though, is that they feel they deserve choice when it comes to their own bodies and health.

 

And, if that choice is denied themon the NHS, it's no wonder that they'll perhaps start to cease to engage with the NHS system, purely because they don't like being told what to do with their own bodies.

 

No wonder then, that many of them will end up going to alternative therapists who are happy to listen to them, and, discuss the options.

 

Perhaps there's a niche here the NHS can take advantage of, seeing the effectiveness of geneuine practitioner/client dailogue and respect for the patients wishes, taking account of patients fears and allocating time to addressing all those: maybe some of those who have abandoned the conventional in favour of the alternative, could be drawn back?

 

Alternatively, the NHS could do 'business as usual' citing funding restrictions etc- but, in that case, please stop harrassing those who prefer a respectful consultation to hard science- they have every right to make that choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As do I - however they must go somewhere that isn't wasting NHS resources on lies. And please don't come back with teh point about them putting enough money in through taxes until you can tell us howe much those people have put in and how much homoeopathic stuff has cost the NHS. Disregarding the fact that that isn't how funding via government works, but forget that for now.

 

 

I must confess, I do not know the figures. My educated assumption is that money put in by those who support the availability of homeopathy on the NHS, far exceeds the money actually spent on providing it.

 

I know more have the actual figures to confirm that, than you do to deny it.

 

As far as I can see, there is no realisitic way how either of us could obtain those figures- however, if you feel you want to assert the opposite i.e. that the money spent on homeopathy exceeds that provided proportionally in taxes from those who support it, then, feel free to prove it.

 

In the absense of actual figures, I can only go on rough estimations i.e. knowing that there is a demand for homeopathy (given the fact that it's available and used on the NHS, that more people would like to access it than actually can, that there is an outcry whenever it is suggested that it be withdrawn etc) and knowing that the decision makers of the NHS are, in the main, not that respectful of nay 'alternative' treatments, I'm pretty sure that the allocation of actual cash is going to be very low.

 

Perhaps, if you can't obtain actual figures to support your view, you could offer up some reasons why you'd think the opposite is true?

[Kthebean]

Seems in your post above you are using the terms 'alternative medicine' and 'homeopathy' interchangeably, which is misleading.

 

In addition one does not have to side with the NHS or the large pharmaceutical companies in order to think homeopathy is a cash cow crock of cowpat.

 

Many of the faults you have pointed out about the NHS and doctors are true. Still doesn't mean I want the NHS paying loads of money for homeopathic treatments and practitioners that do not have a basis in science.

[milquetoast1]

In addition one does not have to side with the NHS or the large pharmaceutical companies in order to think homeopathy is a cash cow crock of cowpat.

Not even the benefits of "nonsense on stilts" then?