Death by Homeopathy

[Trebuchet]

I finally had to stop lurking and register because of an item in last week's commentary -- the one about the mother who took her child off chemo at the advice of a homeopath.

How come both the mother and her adviser aren't in prison? At least for child neglect, if not for manslaughter? With proper treatment, the kid had a chance. Without, none at all. Where were the state authorities? How come the doctors (the real ones) didn't notify someone? And finally, where was the outrage from Randi and the Forum?

Treb

[Garrette]

Welcome to non-lurking, treb. (May I borrow you next time I storm a castle?)

I have three suspicions:

First, I suspect that they are not in prison because the authorities are loathe to get too involved in what are perceived as parental rights, though there are precedents for it.

Second, I think the outrage is assumed. While there may be nothing said about this particular incident, similar ones are addressed frequently on this forum.

Third, I think Randi addressed it well in his commentary about it being difficult to be angry at the mother who was simply desperate to find a way to help her child. Her choice was tragic but understandable. Despite what some woo-woos claim, stepping on the grief of another is not something most of us do lightly here.

I personally would be more inclined to see the homeopath tried than the mother. The homeopath is selling a service that the consumer should be able to assume is shown to be efficacious, but which we all know has been shown not to be so. Even if the homeopath legitimately believes, the fact he is selling the service gives him greater responsibility regarding research and truthful presentation.

The mother can arguably be said only to have followed the advice of what she reasonably perceived to be a respectable authority figure.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Where were the state authorities? How come the doctors (the real ones) didn't notify someone? And finally, where was the outrage from Randi and the Forum?Well, it's not necessarily all that simple. Can children be made wards of court in America? How easy is it for medics to initiate that if the parents refuse treatment - Jehovah's Witnesses perhaps? The law does give a lot of weight to the rights of the parent too. Also, one wonders how aware anyone was of what was happening while there was still time to do something.

It's horrendous, I know, but often the medics and the authorities are in the situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The bigger picture is the situation where homoeopathy is promoted as accepted medicine, even by some medics. This makes it all too easy for people that way inclined to argue that it's just a difference of opinion, and they have a right to choose. This will go on happening until the medical establishment stops giving diplomatic immunity to homoeopathy from the usual requirements to comply with the standards of evidence based medicine.

Regarding the Forum, my first response was this post here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30516&pagenumber=2#post1870189423). I then started this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30685) in this actual forum. We don't like these people, and we're saying so, but realistically, outrage posted here isn't going to have a huge impact on the situation.

Rolfe.

[Trebuchet]

You're right, of course, about authorities not wanting to interfere with parental rights. It's clearly a touchy subject.
Still, the authorities ARE very quick to jump in where physical or especially sexual abuse are suspected. And doctors and other workers are required by law to report suspicions of such abuse. (The Michael Jackson case, for example.) How much more abusive can you get than causing death?

There have, by the way, been cases of the state stepping in where children were denied medical treatment by Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientist parents. The results, I think, have been pretty inconclusive.

In a way, I hope the mother does go ahead and sue the doctors. It would make for an interesting case an perhaps bring some things out in the open.

I shall endeavor to moderate my outrage in the future!

Treb

[Suezoled]

I say this woman is responsible and while she is suffering, she made an awful decision. She will likely never acknowledge she is responsible for her daughter's death. It's easier to blame someone, such as the chemotherapy and the doctors who gave it.
:(

[Tanja]

I get really angry when I read homeopaths' claims. It is in the core of their advertising to promote homeopathy because it is "safer", "does not produce side effects", "uses only natural substances and no chemicals" etc.

Most people do not know enough about science and medicine and don't understand the difference between facts and claims. Also, of course, most people do not want to see their child suffer in any way. If a doctor offers a mother the choice of "a medicine with this and that side effect" and a "homeopathic medicine with no side effects and based on natural ingredients" I can believe that many people would, because of their ignorance, choose the homeopahic "medicine" for their child. I also think that homeopaths should be legally responsible for every case in which a patient suffers because of failure to recieve proper medication.

Earlier today I was browsing BBC news archives for articles on homeopathy. There was an article back in 2000 on a GP in London who prescribed homeopathic medications to her patients, and used dowsing with a crystal over a book on herbal remedies to help her prescribe the "right" medicine. She prescribed homeopathic medicines to people with bacterial infections. She was eventually reported to the relevant authorities, and the consequence was that her GP licence was withdrawn for THREE MONTHS. I do not understand why she was not banned permanently from practicing medicine?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Tanja
"uses only natural substances and no chemicals" etc.I know we've lampooned this on other threads, but why not have another go?

How "natural" is antimatter? (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm)

To quote those 24-carat nut-jobs Peter Fisher and Lionel Milgrom, talking on the BBC Horizon programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml):DR LIONEL MILGROM (Homeopath): In principle you can make a homeopathic remedy out of absolutely anything that's plant.

PETER FISHER: Deadly nightshade.

LIONEL MILGROM: Animal.

PETER FISHER: Snake venom.

LIONEL MILGROM: Mineral.

PETER FISHER: Calcium carbonate, which is of course chalk.

LIONEL MILGROM: Disease product.

PETER FISHER: Tuberculous gland of a cow.

LIONEL MILGROM: Radiation.I'm not quite sure how they manage that last one, but while they were saying all this the camera was panning over shelves of "proving" books, and I noticed "Nylon" among them.

I wonder how impressed some of the "natural" remedy fans would be by the details of some of this.

Rolfe.

[patnray]

The sad part is that the mother believes the homeopath's claims that it was the doctors who made her daughter ill. She's more likely to sue them than the homeopaths who convinced her to replace proven, but difficult, treatments with nonsense, especially since withdrawal from chemotherapy made her daughter feel better (temporarily), just as the homeopaths predicted...

I do think there is a case to be made against the practitioners, but it would be a difficult battle. I don't think there are that many prosecutors savy enough to understand the issue willing to commit to the time and expense it would entail.

[thaiboxerken]

I think both the woman and her advisor should be jailed, so that they will not cause harm upon another child. The woman because she still doesn't understand that homeopathy is crap.. even after her child died, she blames the qualified medical doctors for the child's death. The homeopath because he is spreading the ignorance.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think both the woman and her advisor should be jailed, so that they will not cause harm upon another child. The woman because she still doesn't understand that homeopathy is crap.. even after her child died, she blames the qualified medical doctors for the child's death. The homeopath because he is spreading the ignorance. Isn't it interesting, though, that the mother wouldn't tell Randi's informant, whom she had consulted for legal help, the name of the book she got her advice from? If she was so sure it was right, why not proclaim it to the world?

Back to my suspicion that these people are often in cognitive dissonance. Part of them does believe, but another part of them knows full well it's BS, and that part kicks in when embarrassment or possible falsification looms, and engages "evasion" mode.

Rolfe.

[Paladin]

Problem is, the homeopathic treatment itself did not kill the child. The disease killed the child. You'd be hard pressed to convict a homeopath of malpractice, because it can be shown that homeopathic treatment is non-toxic. Also, considering the odd philosophy behind homeopathy, you'd be hard pressed to prove that the homeopath acted outside the bounds of his discipline.

However, if a real doctor prescribed nothing but placebo to a cancer patient, you could convict the real doctor of malpractice. If the mother refused chemotherapy and knowingly went to a real doctor who prescribed nothing but placebo, you might also have a case for neglect.

Homeopathy enjoys what Philip K. Dick would call "uniquely special easier conditions". It's wrong, and as we know from this example, people die because of that mistake.

[thaiboxerken]

Problem is, the homeopathic treatment itself did not kill the child. The disease killed the child. You'd be hard pressed to convict a homeopath of malpractice, because it can be shown that homeopathic treatment is non-toxic.

If you went to the ER because an accident chopped off your hand, and the physicians there just gave you some Motrin and told you to walk it off.. is that malpractice? After all, it's not the aspirin that killed you, it's the free flowing blood from your wound. Negligence is a form of malpractice, homeopathic treatment is pure negligence.


Also, considering the odd philosophy behind homeopathy, you'd be hard pressed to prove that the homeopath acted outside the bounds of his discipline.

When the homeopath tells someone to stop medical treatment, he is well outside the bounds of his "discipline". In fact, homeopathy is nothing but quackery and should be outlawed anyway. Every medical condition is outside of a homeopaths discipline.

However, if a real doctor prescribed nothing but placebo to a cancer patient, you could convict the real doctor of malpractice.

Homeopathy IS nothing but placebo. Why not convict homeopaths as well?

[BTox]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Homeopathy IS nothing but placebo. Why not convict homeopaths as well?

I don't know the specifics of this case but many homeopaths in the U.S. are not MDs and are unlicensed. There are, however, homeopaths that are also MDs (as absurd as it sounds), and some of these have lost their licenses to practice medicine and have been criminally charged for negligence.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know the specifics of this case but many homeopaths in the U.S. are not MDs and are unlicensed.

Homeopaths are simply people that are pretending to treat people medically, whether they believe in their remedies or not, they should be held accountable. I don't know of malpractice is the charge that would quite fit, but what they are doing should be illegal.

[BTox]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Homeopaths are simply people that are pretending to treat people medically, whether they believe in their remedies or not, they should be held accountable. I don't know of malpractice is the charge that would quite fit, but what they are doing should be illegal.

Agree 100%. Hopefully someday congress and/or FDA has the gumption to do something about it. I presume the reason they don't now is that the prevalence of use is so low it falls under the radar screen of concern.

[Rolfe]

Without actually going back to a two-week-old Commentary (cripes, I sound like von Daniken....), as far as I remember this wasn't about a woman consulting a particular homoeopath, it was about her reading a book by a homoeopath and making decisions based on that.

She wouldn't tell the name of the book, but would anyone care to bet that if we could consult it, we'd find a cute little disclaimer tucked away somewhere?

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
..... it's not the aspirin that killed you, it's the free flowing blood from your wound. I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism? I thought that was his point, but now you mention it - was it?

Rolfe.

[nick]

We don't have any evidence that the child wouldn't have died anyway. If it turns out that the prognosis was zero, then maybe the child had a better last few days/weeks on the homeopathic "remedy" than being pumped full of chemo.

This is not to defend the gullibility of the mother or the stupidity of the "homeopathic practitioner", just to say that we can't necessarily judge by the outcome. If a big stink was made of this, and it got on TV, and everyone was going "jail the mom, jail the woo-woo", and then the kid's doctor came forward and said, "well, actually, she would probably have died anyway", then all of a sudden, Mom and Dr. Homeovoodoo look almost good.
:(

[Rolfe]

We don't have much detail on this, that's true, but the survival rate for childhood leukaemias is now extremely encouraging, and the general tenor of the tale tends to suggest (plausibly) that the prognosis was not hopeless until the stage when the mother re-presented the child seeking a blood transfusion.

Also, even doctors don't like torturing kids when it's hopeless. Care of the quality of life is also considered in "real" medicine, and I think giving credit to woo-woo for a "peaceful end" can cover up some absolutely horrendous practices.

Rolfe.

[jimlintott]

I don't think there is any real benefit to putting Mom in jail. She screwed up, she lost her child. Jail would just mean more suffering. It may not even send the appropriate mesage to others tempted to try it. She may become the homeopathic martyr.

As for going after the homeopaths, doesn't it get kind of grey? If she took the advice from a book she acted on her own. If an actual person gave her the advice it might be different. The problem is that stopping treatment was probably against her doctors wishes. So she choose to ignore proffesional medical advice and act on the advice of someone she should have known wasn't qualified. It's probably also a civil matter and a blurry one at that.

Maybe some of our lawyer friends have more information.

[geni]

I agree that putting the mum in jail would not help. Some stronge mesage needs to sent out though. As to weather the homeopath is responcible how about an easy one. Is this a case of animal abuse?

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=007514;p=1#0000 14

Arresting the homeopath would send out the right message without hurting those who have already been hurt further.

[jimlintott]

That one isn't easy either. Her intentions (misguided they may be) are to help her poor dog. She isn't neglecting it. She feeds it and has concern for the animals well being, so I would have to say no, it isn't animal abuse.

It's stupid and ignorant though. Can we hold laypeople liable for their own ignorance?

I would love to see all the snake oil salesmen run out of town but I just see so much grey area.

Let's say you are receiving a traditonal medical treatment to save your life. I come along and tell you to stop that treatment and take this remedy and squeeze these crystals. You do what I said and die. Well, I never said you would get better. I just said stop the traditional treatment and try this. Which you chose to do.

I'm afraid that until homeopaths start killing more people very little will be done.

[geni]

Originally posted by jimlintott
. Can we hold laypeople liable for their own ignorance?



Well to use a clasic quote "ignorance if the law is no excuse". Why should ignorance of reality be any different?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
IAs to whether the homeopath is responsible how about an easy one. Is this a case of animal abuse?

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=007514;p=1#0000 14I just can't read these threads, I get so angry and upset. This is animal abuse.

I and my business partner regularly get involved as expert witnesses in animal cruelty cases - sometimes on the defence side, sometimes on the prosecution. Right now I'm doing one where the owner certainly fed the dog and sheltered her and "loved" her - but never took her to a vet even though she had one horrendously sore, weeping ear, was walking on three legs due to arthritis in a hip, and was dying on her feet of kidney failure. I expect a conviction. Part of the duty of care of an animal owner is to provide medical treatment when necessary.

However, we are aware of more than one case where the animal was in even worse shape, and suffering horribly, and received no more medical care than the first dog, but all concerned were "discharged without a stain on their character" because homoeopathy was plausibly presented to the Bench as legitimate veterinary medicine. I think this is scandalous.

The veterinary homoeopaths are extremely keen to have their methods accorded diplomatic immunity from the requirements of evidence-based medicine, and continually urge us to be "courteous" towards our professional colleagues by refraining from criticising their addiction to prescribing magic water. However, some of us are equally keen to out them as magical-thinking woo-woo charlatans.

They've had it their own way too long. We'll see who rusts first. :D

Rolfe.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism?

Yes, aspirin is a blood-thinning agent.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by nick

This is not to defend the gullibility of the mother or the stupidity of the "homeopathic practitioner", just to say that we can't necessarily judge by the outcome. If a big stink was made of this, and it got on TV, and everyone was going "jail the mom, jail the woo-woo", and then the kid's doctor came forward and said, "well, actually, she would probably have died anyway", then all of a sudden, Mom and Dr. Homeovoodoo look almost good.
:(

That only shows that the majority of people are stupid. It would be reasonable to still persucute and convicted the mom and the witch-doctor. Is murder more acceptable if you slit the throat of an unwilling, but terminal patient?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jimlintott

I'm afraid that until homeopaths start killing more people very little will be done.

I am afraid so as well, as there is way too much money tied up in special interest groups. Alternative medicine is not about giving more medical choicese to people, it's about making $$$ at the cost of the ignorant. It's the money that keeps the government from requiring evidence from homeopaths and the like. It's so hard to say that, being a big capitalist, but it is true.

I think jailing the mom would do good, it would keep her dumbass off the street and stop her rantings of how "western doctors" killed her kids. Maybe not stop her rantings, but it would make it harder. She didn't "learn her lesson" at all, she grieves her kid's death, but still doesn't want to admit fault.

And, the homeopath that wrote the book should be there with her. Send John Edward and Sylvia Browne to jail as well, just because they are stupid.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, aspirin is a blood-thinning agent. Then I don't undertand your analogy (aspirin <-> homeopathy)???
But it's not really important, I'm happy to move on.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Then I don't undertand your analogy (aspirin <-> homeopathy)???
But it's not really important, I'm happy to move on.

It was an analogy to represent malpractice. Instead of treating the bleeding wound, the doctor gave the man a pain-killer. Replace aspirin with any other pain-killer. The doctor isn't treating the problem, just making the patient feel good. This is much of what homeopathy is about, not treating the problem.. just making a person feel like they are.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It was an analogy to represent malpractice. Instead of treating the bleeding wound, the doctor gave the man a pain-killer. Replace aspirin with any other pain-killer. The doctor isn't treating the problem, just making the patient feel good.Yes, the choice of aspirin just made the example more complicated, because aspirin isn't a neutral substance here, it really does make the situation worse. He could be sued for the active damage of giving the aspirin.

Substitute paracetamol, and it flies better.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Rolfe,

Without actually saying "I was wrong", I think Thaiboxen more or less admitted his error with his last post. In these parts we call it a "Clayton's" admission. ;)

BillyJoe :cool:

[Rolfe]

No big deal, we seem to be clear what we all mean, now.

What does "Clayton's admission" mean?

Rolfe. (not from these parts, obviously)

[jimlintott]

Well to use a clasic quote "ignorance if the law is no excuse". Why should ignorance of reality be any different?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance of reality is not against the law. If we allow everyone the types of freedoms that they should have, they end up with the freedom to fail or make mistakes. People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment. We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong. Removing the ignorance through education is the only real hope we have.

Deep down I think it is the mom who is responsible. She is the one who ultimately made bad desicions. I think punishment would be a waste of time. Her child was dying so she probably wasn't in a right frame of mind and maybe she is just ignorant of the facts. So while it is her fault I still wouldn't punish her for simply being stupid.

I don't think that punishing any of the parties will help keep it fom happening in the future. Education is the key.

Contrary to my opinion my son says the dog was definately being abused. "Dogs don't know about placebo effect" were his exact words.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jimlintott
People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment. We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong.

....

Contrary to my opinion my son says the dog was definately being abused. "Dogs don't know about placebo effect" were his exact words. On the second point, the law in this country is fairly clear in that while you are allowed to take your own body to any unqualified quack you like, only vets are allowed to diagnose and treat animals. The idea being that the animal shouldn't have to suffer for the health fads of its owner. I think taking a child to an unqualified "healer" rather than a doctor would probably be classed as child abuse, if there was anything really wrong with the child, and although the "healer" might not be breaking the law in quite the same way as if they were treating an animal, they'd be pretty heavily frowned upon. The real trouble starts when qualified vets (and qualified medics) fall prey to the delusion that shaken-up water has some sort of therapeutic properties.

The first point sounds sensible, and is sensible so far as it goes. But it's also the rallying cry of possibly the worst quackery-promoter of all time, Tim Bolen (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html), who regularly sends out a newsletter "to all health freedom fighters everywhere". This concept of "health freedom" has been latched on to by all sorts of frauds and quacks in a bid to fend off the regulators - see Quackwatch article (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/hfreedom.html).

Should people's freedom to choose include the freedom of any unscrupulous charlatan to peddle unproved and ineffective treatments, and to induce sick people to give up on effective (but perhaps unpleasant) forms of treatment and pay the quack for the snake oil instead?

We seem to tolerate the most outrageous scams when it's simply a matter of beauty products being advertised. All these anti-wrinkle creams and anti-ageing potions, and a fool and her money are soon parted. If it spills further into the medical arena with quack remedies for minor and self-limiting ailments, is that much different? Does it matter?

But when it comes to life-threatening conditions and vulnerable people, shouldn't there be some way of stopping these unscrupulous elements from preying on that vulnerability by offering false hope of an easy cure?

Rolfe.

[thaiboxerken]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance of reality is not against the law.

But it should be. We are discussing whether or not there should be legal consequences, or if laws should be made.

If we allow everyone the types of freedoms that they should have, they end up with the freedom to fail or make mistakes. People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment.

I agree to a degree. When it comes to their children, however, they should only be allowed to choose REAL medical treatment. If they want to get themselves killed by choosing mythological treatments, fine.

We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong. Removing the ignorance through education is the only real hope we have.

Removing the ignorant might work as well. How about removing the con-artists? I think homeopathy should be held up to the same strict standards of real medicine, then we'd be getting rid of con-artists.

Deep down I think it is the mom who is responsible. She is the one who ultimately made bad desicions. I think punishment would be a waste of time. Her child was dying so she probably wasn't in a right frame of mind and maybe she is just ignorant of the facts. So while it is her fault I still wouldn't punish her for simply being stupid.

I would, especially since she didn't learn anything from her mistake.

I don't think that punishing any of the parties will help keep it fom happening in the future. Education is the key.

I do, if homeopaths were held responsible for their "treatments", they might actually me careful of what they write. Right now, they have the freedom to write anything and call it "legitimate" medical treatment.

[BillyJoe]

Rolfe,

Originally posted by Rolfe
What does "Clayton's admission" mean?The admission you make when you're not making an admission.

"Clayton's" is a non-alcoholic drink that tastes like beer. It was advertised as "The drink you have when you're not having a drink"

Thaiboxen's reply more or less implied that he had made an error with his previous reply but he didn't actually admit that he was wrong.

BillyJoe

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The admission you make when you're not making an admission.

"Clayton's" is a non-alcoholic drink that tastes like beer. It was advertised as "The drink you have when you're not having a drink"Thanks for the translation!

Thaiboxerken's point was perfectly reasonable, just made a little more obscure by an injudicious choice of example. The points raised in the thread go further than that, however.

Should people have a choice regarding their own medical treatment? Yes, of course.

Should people be allowed to reject medical intervention for themselves? Yes, the law specifically allows this.

Should people be allowed to make what the medical profession considers to be a bad choice, on behalf of their children? Probably not, but it raises awkward questions of personal and family freedom.

Should people be allowed to advertise and promote therapies which the medical establishment considers to be bogus?

I think that's the real killer. Of course it's always possible that the medical establishment might be wrong. However, what tends to happen is that unproven or ineffective pseudotherapies flourish like weeds, sometimes promoted by the genuinely deluded, but often simply as cynical scams. The people doing the promoting insist that their methods work, supporting this assertion by anecdotal testimonial (which might well simply be made up or submitted by their Aunt Jean), and sometimes by small, poorly-designed studies which have managed to get pubished in an obscure or fanzine-style journal.

The authorities are then in the unenviable position of either having to let them continue, or conducting time-consuming and expensive studies to refute these claims. Apparently you can't even bring a consumer siut against a company which states clearly in its advertising that its "remedies" are pure water, if you haven't yourself done actual tests on the actual water in question (see details here (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/kingbio.htm).)

Personally, I think we need the definition of "therapeutic claims" very strictly set out, even to cover stuff like "some people think that copper bracelets can relieve arthritis", when said by someone in the business of selling copper bracelets, and then the law come down like a ton of bricks on the bogus and unsubstantiated ones, including the publication of books with bogus advice, such as appeared to be at the root of the problem in the present case.

Rolfe.

[jimlintott]

Should people's freedom to choose include the freedom of any unscrupulous charlatan to peddle unproved and ineffective treatments, and to induce sick people to give up on effective (but perhaps unpleasant) forms of treatment and pay the quack for the snake oil instead?

Ken and Rolfe, you both make some very good points.

I may be coming across as ambiguous but I have a reason for it. Look at Rolfe's quote above. Worded this way it is obviously a wrong, bad, choice. Like sticking your hands under a running lawn mower. However I don't think that people who choose these remedies are thinking along those lines. They only think it is going to work. Yes they are ignorant and stupid. We cannot make ignorance and stupidity illegal.

What about the religous who think they can be cured by prayer? I do feel that when these people refuse treatment for children they are committing child abuse. On the other hand I would defend their right to choose their own religion and believe whatever mumbo jumbo they want. That is the rock and hard place I find myself between.

In Canada, fortune tellers and the like have to put a disclaimer on advertising. 'For entertainment purposes only'. For homeopathy something similar would be a start but I think that any product that makes tharepuetic or healing claims should be put to strict scrutiny. These products (assuming they have been approved) should only be sold by pharmacists.

Unfortunately if homeopathy was illegal it would just go underground (think back alley abortions). This is why I think educating the public is the best weapon. I also tend to be against punishment as I don't think it is effective.

Is there some possibilty that people may seek some of these alternate treatments because of the cost of regular medicine? If that were true we should see more homeopathy in the U.S. where medical treatment can be very expensive compared to Canada or England.

[thaiboxerken]

However I don't think that people who choose these remedies are thinking along those lines.

I could care less for their intent.

They only think it is going to work. Yes they are ignorant and stupid. We cannot make ignorance and stupidity illegal.

Why not? There are plenty of laws out there that keep people from hurting themselves, seat-belt laws and such. Why not a law that requires anyone that gives "medical" advice be certified by a governing body that has the same standards as real medical treatments?

What about the religous who think they can be cured by prayer?

What about them? They should be convicted for negligence if they refuse real medical treatment for their children in preferrance for a prayer-only "treatment".

I do feel that when these people refuse treatment for children they are committing child abuse.

Yes, it's called negligence.

On the other hand I would defend their right to choose their own religion and believe whatever mumbo jumbo they want. That is the rock and hard place I find myself between.

I don't find myself in that position. They can believe what they want, and hurt themselves.. but when it comes to harming children with their stupidity, the line is drawn.

In Canada, fortune tellers and the like have to put a disclaimer on advertising. 'For entertainment purposes only'. For homeopathy something similar would be a start but I think that any product that makes tharepuetic or healing claims should be put to strict scrutiny. These products (assuming they have been approved) should only be sold by pharmacists.

I agree, that's they way it should be. However, the naturopath/homeopath and "alternative" medicine industry draws in so much money, and has so much money in government special-interest groups that it will never happen. This is one case where big-business controls the rules.

Unfortunately if homeopathy was illegal it would just go underground (think back alley abortions).

Good, then we can convict people.

This is why I think educating the public is the best weapon. I also tend to be against punishment as I don't think it is effective.

I think punishment is effective, I wanted to beat the crap out of people several times but realized I'd go to jail. Maybe I'm just in the minority, but consequences stop me from doing many things that I might otherwise do.

Is there some possibilty that people may seek some of these alternate treatments because of the cost of regular medicine?

Could be, does it matter?

If that were true we should see more homeopathy in the U.S. where medical treatment can be very expensive compared to Canada or England.

I don't know about that, there are other cultural factors involved I think.

[BillyJoe]

Rolfe,

Originally posted by Rolfe
Thaiboxerken's point was perfectly reasonable, just made a little more obscure by an injudicious choice of example.Yes, that is the only point I was making.
But I see he has moved on as so have you so let's leave it there.

BTW, you must have enough material on homoeopathy (is that the spelling you prefer?) to write a book on it.

BillyJoe

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
BTW, you must have enough material on homoeopathy (is that the spelling you prefer?) to write a book on it.I'll leave that to MRC_Hans, I think he'll do a very good job.

I don't have anything original, just a lot of familiarity with existing material. However, a colleague has just submitted a new article to a journal with some original thoughts, so I'll be interested to see if they accept it.

Hahnemann invented homoeopathy, and he was German, He spelled it "Hom&ouml;opathie". In English, were we don't use the umlaut and typewriters don't have the character, it became usual to denote this by adding an "e" after the umlauted letter. Hence "Homoeopathy", or quite often "Homœopathy". More modern usage, especially American, drops the umlauted "o", but leaves the "e", which isn't logical but so what. The real, folding journal in which I'm currently involved in correspondence uses the "oe" spelling, and I kind of like to stick to it just to emphasise how old-fashioned homoeopathy is.

Rolfe.

Edited to remove stupid spelling mistake in the middle of spelling explanation.

[jimlintott]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thaiboxerken

However I don't think that people who choose these remedies are thinking along those lines.

I could care less for their intent.

Intent plays a significant role in law

They only think it is going to work. Yes they are ignorant and stupid. We cannot make ignorance and stupidity illegal.

Why not? There are plenty of laws out there that keep people from hurting themselves, seat-belt laws and such. Why not a law that requires anyone that gives "medical" advice be certified by a governing body that has the same standards as real medical treatments?

I wholly agree that the practitioners should be held to high standards and be held liable if there advice hurts a patient. I am talking about the patient being ignorant and stupid. You could make ignorance and stupidity illegal but that won't make it go away.

(snip)

I do feel that when these people refuse treatment for children they are committing child abuse.

Yes, it's called negligence.

It's abuse but it isn't negligence. Not seeking regular medical treatment for a child because you just don't care would be negligence. Seeking even a quack remedy shows concern.

I really do agree with you that something should be done. I do think that some of the laws that are suggested might not be constitutional and clash with personal rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom to be stupid and ignorant. Guns kill far more people than homeopathy and look at how people get upset if you suggest that something should be done, vis a vis no guns.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Guns kill far more people than homeopathy and look at how people get upset if you suggest that something should be done, vis a vis no guns. That's a fair point. But the other side of it is that we should do nothing at all about a lesser evil while some greater evil remains in existence?

Not that I have much perspective on it, because guns are very strictly regulated here and although gun crime exists, guns don't feature in most ordinary people's lives. And I have no idea how many people are harmed by choosing quack medicine over real medicine, as I can't see any way to gather the statistics.

Rolfe.

[thaiboxerken]

Intent plays a significant role in law

In many cases, but it's my opinion that intent is not a factor that should be considered in these cases.


I wholly agree that the practitioners should be held to high standards and be held liable if there advice hurts a patient. I am talking about the patient being ignorant and stupid. You could make ignorance and stupidity illegal but that won't make it go away.

It would place more stupid people in the prisons though.


It's abuse but it isn't negligence. Not seeking regular medical treatment for a child because you just don't care would be negligence. Seeking even a quack remedy shows concern.

Negligence is not getting a child the medical treatment when it is available. In this case, the medical treatment was being administered. The lady was negligent by stopping that medical treatment by preferring BS treatment that doesn't work. This really doesn't matter though, does it? Why are you arguing semantics?


Guns kill far more people than homeopathy and look at how people get upset if you suggest that something should be done, vis a vis no guns.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'm not going to debate that with you, as it has nothing to do with homeopathy and medical negligence.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I just can't read these threads, I get so angry and upset. This is animal abuse.

I and my business partner regularly get involved as expert witnesses in animal cruelty cases - sometimes on the defence side, sometimes on the prosecution. Right now I'm doing one where the owner certainly fed the dog and sheltered her and "loved" her - but never took her to a vet even though she had one horrendously sore, weeping ear, was walking on three legs due to arthritis in a hip, and was dying on her feet of kidney failure. I expect a conviction. Part of the duty of care of an animal owner is to provide medical treatment when necessary.

However, we are aware of more than one case where the animal was in even worse shape, and suffering horribly, and received no more medical care than the first dog, but all concerned were "discharged without a stain on their character" because homoeopathy was plausibly presented to the Bench as legitimate veterinary medicine. I think this is scandalous.

The veterinary homoeopaths are extremely keen to have their methods accorded diplomatic immunity from the requirements of evidence-based medicine, and continually urge us to be "courteous" towards our professional colleagues by refraining from criticising their addiction to prescribing magic water. However, some of us are equally keen to out them as magical-thinking woo-woo charlatans.

They've had it their own way too long. We'll see who rusts first. :D

Rolfe.

Thanks a lot. I went there, and almost lost it.

Oh yes, vaccine is obvious most likely cause of ear polyp years later. Without vaccines there would be no diesease. Would be foolish to think otherwise. If only no vaccines were used we maybe all live forever.

Most funny thing I read today!
.


I don't know if the person thinks what is said about vaccines is fuuny, or if they think it is funny that vaccines really are to blame for everything. I do detect sarcasm at least though.
But some moron did write that about vaccines and polyps.
Frucking morons. I can't go to those places because it is not good for the blood pressure or stress level.

[Eos of the Eons]

Go ahead and try to edumacate people. You can have all the proof in the world, all the sound arguments, all the reason to back you up, and people will not believe you. They would prefer to go on their
"faith of the human body and its ability to heal"


There is a really big reason why that stupid mom will still blame 'mainstream' medicine rather than the lack of medical treatment for her kid's death.

She is sure that her kid was poisoned beyond help. That if her kid didn't have any chemo, then the homeopathy would have cured the kid.

Once people get wrapped up in the 'natural healing' philosophy, then you might as well be telling the pope that god isn't real.

The only thing that can be done is to stop letting the liars lie. Stop letting the the crap be sold. Stop legitimizing their philosophies by allowing the stuff to be unregulated.

Stop letting the books be sold. Stop letting the con artists delude their followers into selling their sh*t.

Put the liars in jail. Ban the books they way you would ban hate material against jews and anyone else. "natural' healers spread hate about the mainstream. They point fingers and lie about the doctors poisoning people with chemo and other things like medication.

That mom is never going to recognize what really happened. You want to see a whole site of moms just liker her?

It's sad, really sad, but getting to be a bigger and bigger problem.

We hate doctors (http://216.92.20.151/discussions/forumdisplay.php?forumid=45)


They hate doctors and know nothing about microbes or the human body.

We would like to keep away from the Dr if possible. Thank You

how to raise a healthy child in spite of your doctor (http://216.92.20.151/discussions/showthread.php?threadid=101244)

Croup is a symptom not a disease
There are many reports of treating cancer sucessfully with essiac tea


I have heard and read of how cancer has shrunk in size - or hardened - coming to the surface of the skin only to break open to release its poison from the body. There are many stories such as this. The one effect I have seen and keep hearing about is how ESSIAC ® improves the vitality of the person using the tea. The herbs are helping to cleanse the toxins from the body creating a healthier immune system to possibly deal with cancer more effectively.


My mom cured her cancer with this...really!!! Yes, and I would take it if I had cancer...it will cure you! It willl! (http://216.92.20.151/discussions/showthread.php?threadid=3857&highlight=cancer+leukemia)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I don't know if the person thinks what is said about vaccines is funny, or if they think it is funny that vaccines really are to blame for everything. I do detect sarcasm at least though.
But some moron did write that about vaccines and polyps.I do know, because I happen to know that poster personally. He's extremely concerned by the whole affair, but has begun to despair of ever getting through to these people.

This was said towards the end of a fairly long battle (mainly on other threads) where the poster (the Fat Man) had tried repeatedly to drag the homoeopaths kicking and screaming to face the contradictions and illogicalities in their position. You can imagine about how far he was getting. In the main, every attempt to suggest that shaken-up water isn't medicine was met by a demand that he should accept personal responsibility for the thalidomide tragedy, and the assertion that this tragedy alone proved that those who try to heal disease by using real molecules are evil.

The sarcasm in the riposte about the vaccines was perhaps a little unfortunate if taken out of context, but I can sympathise. For the record, the preposterous assertion which prompted the riposte wasWhen all of these acute symptoms are passed, consider that all of this may still trace right back to "ailments from vaccination"...leading up to the polyp.In fact the dog had been given a primary vaccine at eight months old by the rescue centre he came from, and had subsequently lived for seven years without vaccination, with his anti-vaccination homoeopath "rescuer".

Rolfe.

[jimlintott]

I know I'm probably sounding stupid but I have a reason for arguing semantics. The people we are trying to take on love to manipulate words for their own purpose. I think it is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to just say "throw them in jail". I would like to see more laws regarding homeopathic practitioners but laws regarding the choices of patients get tangled in a web of personal choice, religious freedoms and the right to raise children as we see fit.

We could try to indroduce laws regarding medical treatment for children and we''ll quickly end up in a religous or cultural freedom fight. Some ethnic groups might say 'we have been snorting powdered ocelot testicle for a thousand years. Who are you to take away our culture?' We then enter the arena of political correctness.

Then there is the slippery slope of what is child abuse. Is raising a child to be a racist bigot abuse? I might think so but then some might say that raising your child as atheist is abuse. Is making a bad choice of medical treatment abuse?

Eos makes an excellent point about some people's perception of regular medicine. I see only that they have been educated by someone to believe this. They need to be reeducated. Persuading the media to expose homeopathy for what it is may be very effective.

I wish it was as simple as making some laws. I don't think it is. My arguing semantics and playing devil's advocate is to try to make that point clear.

[thaiboxerken]

I think it is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to just say "throw them in jail". I would like to see more laws regarding homeopathic practitioners but laws regarding the choices of patients get tangled in a web of personal choice, religious freedoms and the right to raise children as we see fit.

I don't see it that way. I see it as totally reasonable to toss idiots like this in jail. I have always maintained that position. I could care less about their "personal choice, religious freedoms and parental freedoms" when it comes to this. Freedom is limited to less than anarchy, and homeopaths are spreading anarchy with their ignorance and schemes. The only people that should have freedom are those who will be responsible with it.

We could try to indroduce laws regarding medical treatment for children and we''ll quickly end up in a religous or cultural freedom fight.

Yea, so?

Some ethnic groups might say 'we have been snorting powdered ocelot testicle for a thousand years. Who are you to take away our culture?' We then enter the arena of political correctness.

Screw political correctness, I could care less. Make homeopaths have to provide evidence for their claimed cures, if they don't pan out.. make it illegal.

Is making a bad choice of medical treatment abuse?

Yes.

Eos makes an excellent point about some people's perception of regular medicine. I see only that they have been educated by someone to believe this. They need to be reeducated. Persuading the media to expose homeopathy for what it is may be very effective.

It's been done and people still believe in that nonsense. It's because of the advertisement that the homeopaths are allowed to use. Because it is not illegal, that is anough to legitimize it to the believers. They don't care about facts.

I wish it was as simple as making some laws. I don't think it is. My arguing semantics and playing devil's advocate is to try to make that point clear.

Making laws would be the beginning. If the laws said that all medical treatments had to be backed by evidence, then homeopathy would be illegal. Right now, the homeopaths think that their stuff does work and the believers think that because it's legal, it does.

[jimlintott]

The only people that should have freedom are those who will be responsible with it.

The right to pursue life liberty and happiness is guaranteed to all american citizens regardless of IQ. The supreme court is constitutionally bound to respect things like personal freedoms and religious choice whether either of us like it or not.

Make homeopaths have to provide evidence for their claimed cures, if they don't pan out.. make it illegal.

I absolutely, 100%, agree. Any product that claims to have medicinal or far reaching health benefits should have to be shown to work or not be allowed for sale as such. I think this type of law would be workable and is needed.


It's been done and people still believe in that nonsense.

Then it isn't done. Won't be done until no one believes. (Sorry for another semantic argument. :D)

[thaiboxerken]

The right to pursue life liberty and happiness is guaranteed to all american citizens regardless of IQ. The supreme court is constitutionally bound to respect things like personal freedoms and religious choice whether either of us like it or not.

You are true, but freedom is only granted to those who are responsible with it. That's why we have prisons. If people are going to abuse the system by ripping people off or spreading false "medical" treatments, they should have their freedoms restricted.

I think this type of law would be workable and is needed.

Yea, it's just too bad that naturopathy and quack medicines have so much money and power tied up in special interest groups that this will probably never happen.

Then it isn't done. Won't be done until no one believes. (Sorry for another semantic argument. :D)

You can lead a horse to water....

[Trebuchet]

It's bad enough that this stuff is allowed to go unchallenged by legal authorities. What's worse is that proponents of "alternative medicine" have actually conned state legislatures into requiring health insurance plans to cover them, thus requiring the rest of us to pay for their frauds. As if we didn't have enough of a health care problem in this country.
I saw an item a few years ago mentioning that chiropractors had surpassed lawyers as the most frequent profession in my state's legislature. Groan.

[Rolfe]

Happens just about everywhere. Look at this thread here (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=739&PagePosition=1) - especially the fourth post! I can't help wondering if this poster is anyone we know.

Rolfe.

[Lost Boy]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Happens just about everywhere. Look at this thread here (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=739&PagePosition=1) - especially the fourth post! I can't help wondering if this poster is anyone we know.

Rolfe.

't ain't me, but it raises an interesting question. The NHS does fund homeopathy doesn't it? I thought the big homeopathic hospitals weren't state-run. What does it need to make the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) pay attention?

By the way I'd rather the originator of that thread got some state-funded help for her illiteracy.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lost Boy
't ain't me, ....Mmm, thought had crossed my mind I admit, but I'll strike you off the list of suspects. Spells too good for Geni. :D Wrong country for Hans and a good few others, and I don't think Hans would sock-puppet them anyway.

I gather that one of the London boroughs recently cancelled its contract with the London Homoeopathic Hospital on the basis they didn't think they were getting anything for their money. But then we hear the place has recently had a multi-million-pound refit.

See what I said in the "sample preliminary tests" thread. I don't think it's possible to refute homoeopathy to the homoepaths, and the very strength of their belief acts in their favour when interacting with rational but not too clued-up colleagues. Homoeopathy has to be demonstrated to be delusional not to the deluded but to the keepers of the purse-strings and medical ethics. I think Edzard Ernst is doing some good stuff here, but it's so in with the bricks it's slow work.

I did ask a member of the medical GMC (at a dinner) what they proposed to do in their re-validation about professionals who had embraced magic methodologies. He suggested that they tackle the easier bit first (revalidating the people who were doing it right) and gradually the macicians would be sidelined. However, I detect a bit of resentment there, and I wonder if the professional revalidators and NICE might have to take some interest at least in the medium term.

Rolfe

[geni]

Rolfe you have a PM.

I have to say that I have no idea who jsut people is either I wonder if they will carry on posting.