Pixel42
16th November 2004, 02:33 PM
Earlier this month, two doctors working in private practice and treating their patients with complementary medicine were found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council. The ruling is a landmark in several respects and deserves to be analysed in detail.
The two physicians had treated and advised a patient with breast cancer. Instead of recommending conventional surgery, possibly supplemented with chemotherapy, they advocated alternatives including Laetrile, a compound derived from apricot kernels, diet and pancreatic enzymes. These treatments have not been demonstrated to be effective and Laetrile has even been shown to be ineffective. The GMC panel found that the information pack routinely handed out to patients by these doctors was misleading, without peer-reviewed scientific evidence and biased against conventional treatments. Furthermore, the information failed to alert patients to the risks of the recommended alternative cancer cures, which were significant.
Essentially, the judgment suggests that UK doctors must make sure the information they provide to patients is evidence-based and up to date with current scientific knowledge. GMC rules have always stated that "information must be factual and verifiable". But this has rarely been checked and even less frequently enforced. Therefore this ruling could indicate a new attitude within the GMC of enforcing evidence-based medicine, which would have far-reaching consequences for all of British medicine.
At last the GMC is taking its responsibilities seriously.
Full article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1352030,00.html)
The two physicians had treated and advised a patient with breast cancer. Instead of recommending conventional surgery, possibly supplemented with chemotherapy, they advocated alternatives including Laetrile, a compound derived from apricot kernels, diet and pancreatic enzymes. These treatments have not been demonstrated to be effective and Laetrile has even been shown to be ineffective. The GMC panel found that the information pack routinely handed out to patients by these doctors was misleading, without peer-reviewed scientific evidence and biased against conventional treatments. Furthermore, the information failed to alert patients to the risks of the recommended alternative cancer cures, which were significant.
Essentially, the judgment suggests that UK doctors must make sure the information they provide to patients is evidence-based and up to date with current scientific knowledge. GMC rules have always stated that "information must be factual and verifiable". But this has rarely been checked and even less frequently enforced. Therefore this ruling could indicate a new attitude within the GMC of enforcing evidence-based medicine, which would have far-reaching consequences for all of British medicine.
At last the GMC is taking its responsibilities seriously.
Full article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1352030,00.html)