Is the NHS useless?

[JFKvsNixon]

Certainly not dominated by such people.

Although "complementary and alternative" medicine such as homeopathy is often available. I got plenty of argument when I suggested forbidding cosmetic surgery in the NHS to free up cash for mental health. Anybody got a problem with getting shot of these "alternative" quacks?

 

Homeopathy isn't readily available on the NHS, here's what they say about it:

 

Homeopathy is not available on the NHS in all areas of the country, but there are several NHS homeopathic hospitals and some GP practices also offer homeopathic treatment.

 

The British Homeopathic society has stated that the NHS pays £4 million a year on homeopathy. That's £4 million too much in my opinion, but some swear by the treatment, and offering it it may save the NHS money by stopping the people who believe in homeopathy accessing other more expensive NHS services.

[unbeliever]

Homeopathy isn't readily available on the NHS, here's what they say about it:

 

 

 

The British Homeopathic society has stated that the NHS pays £4 million a year on homeopathy. That's £4 million too much in my opinion, but some swear by the treatment, and offering it it may save the NHS money by stopping the people who believe in homeopathy accessing other more expensive NHS services.

 

If you're not about to drop dead on the spot, very little is "readily" available from the NHS.

 

I can't accept the wisdom of this.

People should be offered treatment that works and nothing else. If they're stupid enough to reject treatment that works in favour of nonsense, that's no reason for the taxpayers to fund the nonsense.

Edited November 2, 2015 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

It also maintains millions of people on unnecessary life-long symptom-management drugs and seriously damages the health of millions through it's lack of focus on preventative health.

 

Apart from the yearly vaccinations I get, the asthma clincs to prevent it worsening, the yearly checks to look for problems before they become bad, the ongoing education/info I get about health eating, etc...no the NHS doesn't do preventative health at all...

 

 

That will take a long time to change due to the fact that maintaining a sick population is much more profitable than a population that is healthy, for the vested interests (eg pharmaceutical companies) who are deeply tied into the health service and very influential in any decision making.

 

Oh dear he's invoking Big Pharma as the nasty boogeyman, what a surprise.... it's the new Reds under the bed scare of the century this...

 

On the positive side, more and more people are now becoming aware that the chronic illnesses that plague the developed nations i.e. heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer etc, are, in the main, caused by diet &, easily avoidable (via diet).

 

No, cancers biggest risk factor is getting old. That's a consequence of living longer and being healthy... which is odd considering all these illnesses that supposedly plague us so much - it's as if life expectancy has never risen steadily since the advent of free public healthcare....

[Beauchiefs]

It also maintains millions of people on unnecessary life-long symptom-management drugs and seriously damages the health of millions through it's lack of focus on preventative health.

 

That will take a long time to change due to the fact that maintaining a sick population is much more profitable than a population that is healthy, for the vested interests (eg pharmaceutical companies) who are deeply tied into the health service and very influential in any decision making.

 

Just as hospitals have to house shops that sell 'foods' medically proven to be extremely injurous to health (because they need the extra funds such sources provide), equally it has to appease the other private interests who provide much of it's funding, even if a healthy nation is counter to those companies interests.

 

On the positive side, more and more people are now becoming aware that the chronic illnesses that plague the developed nations i.e. heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer etc, are, in the main, caused by diet &, easily avoidable (via diet).

 

Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post

Cyclone- for whatever reasons, I can't deal with your particular style of communicating/debate.

 

I could say that I'm pretty much as 'adversarial' as one would expect of a newly diagnosed autistic with a history of mental health issues, who has had to look back on a life of mistakes and failure, and realise that they were entirely due to being autistic, in an NT world where the majority of autistic people are at a severe disadvantage in all the areas of life that humans value- relationships, work, health, education etc.

 

But, I know from many past discussions on here with you, that it will just aggravate me.

 

 

To blame all mistakes and failures in your life on your illness might satisfy your mind, the implication is that you would otherwise have been perfect in an imperfect world.

You do the hardworking employees of the NHS who are doing their best for the wide variety of patients they come across a disservice with your criticism.

The NHS might not be perfect but neither is the world.

Report Post

[JFKvsNixon]

I can't accept the wisdom of this.

People should be offered treatment that works and nothing else. If they're stupid enough to reject treatment that works in favour of nonsense, that's no reason for the taxpayers to fund the nonsense.

 

Ok, stay with me here for all the post.

 

For some homeopathy works, that is undeniable. In my opinion it doesn't work for the reasons that homeopathy states that it does. I wouldn't even go as far as saying that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, it's quackery nothing more.

 

The placebo effect is clearly at work here. You've got someone who believes in the treatment that they're giving, giving time and attention to someone who believes in the treatment that they're receiving. This is enough to improve a lot of people's problems that are often associated with homeopathic treatment.

 

As I've said, it's been stated that only £4 million a year is spent on homeopathy so is not a major issue for the NHS, I'm of a similar opinion to you that it's £4 million too much. Although you do wonder if the people who accessed homeopathy would end of accessing some other NHS service if homeopathy wasn't offered to them. So I try to keep an open mind about it.

[unbeliever]

Ok, stay with me here for all the post.

 

For some homeopathy works, that is undeniable. In my opinion it doesn't work for the reasons that homeopathy states that it does. I wouldn't even go as far as saying that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, it's quackery nothing more.

 

The placebo effect is clearly at work here. You've got someone who believes in the treatment that they're giving, giving time and attention to someone who believes in the treatment that they're receiving. This is enough to improve a lot of people's problems that are often associated with homeopathic treatment.

 

As I've said, it's been stated that only £4 million a year is spent on homeopathy so is not a major issue for the NHS, I'm of a similar opinion to you that it's £4 million too much. Although you do wonder if the people who accessed homeopathy would end of accessing some other NHS service if homeopathy wasn't offered to them. So I try to keep an open mind about it.

 

My mind is open, but has filters. Homeopathy is so ridiculous and inevitably performs so abysmally in trials, that it is absolute madness for the NHS to spend a penny on it.

If it is NHS policy to lie to people and give them bogus treatments in the hope that the placebo effect will sort them out, I suggest that's disgraceful. Even if you disagree you could surely just give them a tic-tac and say it's Lilly the Pink's medicinal compound, or snake oil or something.

 

In some cases, thinking that this treatment is endorsed by the NHS, people will die because they failed to seek actual treatment.

Quack medicine such as this is costs lives. A high profile example of late would be Steve Jobs of Apple fame.

[JFKvsNixon]

My mind is open, but has filters. Homeopathy is so ridiculous and inevitably performs so abysmally in trials, that it is absolute madness for the NHS to spend a penny on it.

If it is NHS policy to lie to people and give them bogus treatments in the hope that the placebo effect will sort them out, I suggest that's disgraceful. Even if you disagree you could surely just give them a tic-tac and say it's Lilly the Pink's medicinal compound, or snake oil or something.

 

In some cases, thinking that this treatment is endorsed by the NHS, people will die because they failed to seek actual treatment.

Quack medicine such as this is costs lives. A high profile example of late would be Steve Jobs of Apple fame.

 

This is what the NHS website say's about homeopathy:

Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are "scientifically implausible". This is also the view of the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies.

 

Now I don't know about you, but I believe that this is a long way from endorsing the treatment.

 

Also for the placebo effect to work, the person receiving the treatment has to believe in it. The placebo effect is far more complicated than just giving someone a sugar pill.

 

So I'm not asking you're mind to be open on the scientific basis of how homeopathy works, as I've said a couple of times there is no scientific basis.

Edited November 2, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[unbeliever]

This is what the NHS website say's about homeopathy:

 

 

Now I don't know about you, but I believe that this is a long way from endorsing the treatment.

 

Also for the placebo effect to work, the person receiving the treatment has to believe in it. The placebo effect is far more complicated than just giving someone a sugar pill.

 

So I'm not asking you're mind to be open on the scientific basis of how homeopathy works, as I've said a couple of times there is no scientific basis.

 

It's a con.

The hypothesis that it sometimes works because of the placebo effect doesn't change this.

It's unconscionable.

[JFKvsNixon]

It's a con.

The hypothesis that it sometimes works because of the placebo effect doesn't change this.

It's unconscionable.

 

As I said more than a couple of times now, I wouldn't even go as far as saying that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, I agree it's quackery nothing more.

[Obelix]

Fact is, that the vast majority of heart disease is caused by wrong diet and is preventable by right diet..

 

You can repeat that as much as you want, in the absence of evidence it's nothing more than a belief.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 13:31 ----------

 

It's a con.

The hypothesis that it sometimes works because of the placebo effect doesn't change this.

It's unconscionable.

 

It doesn't work because of the placebo effect. It just doesn't work at all and the placebo effect would be just as valid if the doc gave you a pill and pretended it was some new miracle drug.

 

Homeopathy needs the Simon Singh treatment but they are a bit scared of engaging like the chiroquackers did these days :-)