|
 Article of the Month - June 2006
Should Cash Strapped NHS Ditch Homoeopathy?
Controversy about homoeopathy
The month of May has seen more controversy surrounding homoeopathy. The antagonists this time are 13 doctors who are calling on the NHS to stop funding homoeopathic treatments as they do not believe it is a proven science. One of their doctors, Dr Edzard Ernst, has studied homoeopathy and claims that there is no real evidence that it works. Their objection is that the NHS should not promote therapies that have not been tested in the same way that pharmaceutical drugs have been tested.
Prince Charles, a strong proponent of complementary therapies, has recently said to the World Health Organisation (WHO) that more integration and choice needs to occur so that people have the benefit of western medicine and holistic medicine. The royal family has had homoeopathic and medical treatment since the 1800s, and the Queen Mother certainly lived a long life; she died at 101. His own mother, the Queen, is probably the only 80 year old woman in the UK with a full time job and still going strong. Hence, one can perhaps begin understand why Prince Charles would support homoeopathy and holistic therapies.
The WHO has stated that homoeopathy is the second leading system of primary healthcare in the world, and is practiced in over 80 countries by laypersons, trained practitioners, nurses and doctors.
Why target homoeopathy?
Every year or two, someone or a group decides that it is time to discredit homoeopathy. Doctors themselves disagree about the efficacy of homoeopathy, and people in general have very mixed feelings. This is very understandable as homoeopathy is still widely unknown and its concepts feel a little strange at first as they are different to our westernized way of thinking. Some people are very fearful of what they do not understand. Others may also use distraction to turn the attention away from what is going on in the medical profession.
Feeling threatened
People who decide to study medicine usually do so because they wish to help others with their health. Some may be carrying on a family tradition, or even be pressured into this field, and others may think about the wealth of private practice. The long hours of study required, the duration of study and demanding internships are tests of true commitment, whatever the instigation to get into this field. Now, imagine that upon completing all these difficult years of study and gaining a society approved high status, how threatening it can feel that other therapies can be just as effective. Some are happy to learn about them and apply them; others are unwilling to even consider other options and are almost brainwashed into thinking that western medicine is the only way to solve health problems.
Getting it wrong
Scientists get it wrong all the time; and scientific journals are littered with phrases like:
- 'We used to believe that the world was flat, but now we know that is not true.'
- 'New research has disproved previous assumptions about bloodletting being effective in the treatment of fevers.'
- 'We do not understand exactly how the brain works.'
- 'No one is exactly sure how the coil works as a contraceptive, but it is believed that the irritation to the cervix prevents conception.'
One can substitute any of the red bits with lots more old assumptions, disproved facts, etc. Medicine and science is moving on all the time, and dismissing holistic therapies because we do not fully understand them would be as foolhardy as looking at the above and saying that western medicine is a waste of time.
Iatrogenic deaths
I read in my local paper, The Press, that 20 people a week die from pharmaceutical drugs in the UK, and that this figure could be a lot higher. The deaths results from poor prescribing or mistakes in taking the drugs. 'Iatros' means physician in Greek, and '-genic', meaning induced by, hence iatrogenic means induced by a healthcare professional. According to SIN (Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect on http://www.sin-medicalmistakes.org/index.html):
850,000 patients (10%) in NHS hospitals in the UK will experience a medical error every year. Most will suffer no permanent damage. However, about 1% of these errors result in death and permanent serious disability. It is estimated that there will be 34,000 unnecessary deaths every year, and 40,000 patients who are left seriously and permanently damaged.
The American Iatrogenic Association at http://www.iatrogenic.org provides more information on iatrogenic issues. Apparently, 784,000 Americans die each year from drug reactions.
Based on the above, would you ask the NHS to stop spending money on medicine?
Drugs testing ain't all that great
How many times have tested drugs been prescribed by doctors to the public and then withdrawn due to damaging the health of patients? Mercury in vaccinations was only withdrawn last year. Pemoline was used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and was withdrawn last year to due the liver damage it causes. There are numerous other drugs that can be sited.
In the Telegraph report titled 'Drug trial firm comes under fire from regulator' by Celia Hall on 26/05/2006, the findings on the recent case where 6 previously healthy men trialling a new drug required hospitalisation for multiple organ failure said:
The Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said that Parexel failed to follow several procedures.
However it found that the drug being tested, TGN1412, had been correctly and safely made and administered and that the adverse effects were "most likely" caused by "an unpredicted biological action of the drug in humans."
How much did the creators of this drug truly understand the impact it would have on the body? Movies like The Constant Gardner also serve to remind the public that drugs companies need human beings to complete their testing and that some of the methods used in the past have required further investigation. There is also the issue of conflict of interest when most of the people on regulatory boards also hold senior positions within the pharmaceutical companies themselves.
Should cases like these stop the NHS spending money on new medicines?
Homoeopathy is not unproven
Death by homoeopathy
Has there ever been a documented case where a homoeopathic remedy has caused someone to die? Has any death certificate ever recorded the cause of death as homoeopathy?
Humble beginnings
John Davison Rockefeller, Sr. (1839-1937) was one of the richest men to have ever lived. He made his money in the USA primarily through oil, but was a philanthropist as well. Although he was known to have preferred homoeopathy, he was persuaded to fund medical institutions by his son and advisor, both of whom had no love for homoeopathy. This flow of money into medicine helped it to evolve considerably, enabling trials and formal studies. Unfortunately, homoeopathy has had no such benefactor and research has been simple and small due to limited resources. It should be noted that the three main founders of homoeopathy, Hippocrates (considered the father of medicine and a naturopath), Paracelsus and Hahnemann, were all doctors. They were men who were prepared to continue learning. Hahnemann took meticulous notes when he started homoeopathy and waited for many years, continuously observing and learning, before publishing his first book. He was treated with suspicion and ridicule initially, until his results had patients queuing to see him. Even back them, the local chemists were concerned about losing business and tried to stop him from practising.
Homoeopathy has been tested as best as it can with limited funding. Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, with billions to spend and a vested interest in the continuing treatment rather the cure for some ailments, homoeopathy comes from a different angle. The aim is to produce rapid, gentle and permanent cure where possible. All homoeopaths are guided by what is best for the patient. Money in homoeopathy goes into training other homoeopaths, producing remedies, writing books and educating people about how homoeopathy can help them. This is not a cash rich industry that enables large commercial advertising campaigns of brands to solve all your health problems, no bonuses go to medical practices who use large quantities of remedies, no political parties are sponsored, etc.
Homoeopathy has been practised for about 200 years, and the remedies that were good then are still good now for similar problems. Doctors religiously kept notes on their cases and prescriptions, noting down the progress of each patient. 80 countries, millions of homoeopathic patients, thousands of practitioners: are all these people wrong and 13 doctors right? And, as people have changed, so has homoeopathy, growing and developing to cope with the new health challenges that arise with time.
According to What Doctors Don't Tell You ( www.wddty.co.uk): In the past 24 years there have been 180 controlled and 118 randomized trials into homoeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homoeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect. Another meta-analysis found that 65 of the 89 trials analysed had produced an effect way beyond placebo. Of the £70 billion spent on the NHS every year, just £3m has been spent on researching complementary therapies and, of that, £324,000 on alternative cancer care.
Clinical drug trials not relevant
Homoeopathy is holistic. Because of its nature, there is no one remedy to cure one particular ailment as each person has their own individual set of symptoms and susceptibilities. So, clinical drug trials would be an inappropriate way to test remedies.
Computers have helped homoeopathy a great deal in the collation of materials and increasing practitioner communication. Professional bodies have been formed to help keep up the standard of treatment available.
Of course, homoeopathy is not perfect. There are inconsistencies within the homoeopathic community concerning methodology, prescribing and provings. Double blind provings do occur during remedy provings, however, other provings have been meditative, and require clinical practice confirmation. Agreed methods of provings and then collated clinical data is required.
At this stage, homoeopathy allows the practitioner the freedom to be creative and continue learning and improving his/her profession, which is both an art and a science.
The NHS and Homoeopathy
Homoeopathy deserves NHS funding as it is a gentle, non-toxic, safe, holistic system of medicine that accepts every person as an individual and treats them accordingly. The NHS needs to continue and expand the funding of homoeopathy so that patients can have a choice about the healthcare they receive. Many homoeopathic patients report how much homoeopathy has helped them. There are currently 5 NHS run homoeopathic hospitals in Britain today and there are courses run for doctors so that they can prescribe homoeopathic remedies.
Most non-NHS homoeopaths work with clients on some kind of medication. They are happy to work with doctors to improve their clients' health. If caught up in an accident, homoeopaths would probably want both a surgeon and a homoeopath to help them to heal.
|
Medicine has broken much ground and done a great deal to save lives. However, there have been and still are many mistakes, and more research is still needed. The NHS would never consider stopping investing in western medicine and there is no suggestion that homoeopathy replace medicine. Western medicine is critical to health today and is especially good in emergency, life-saving procedures. Homoeopathy is also excellent in treating many diseases, speeding up the healing process and restoring health. On its own or in conjunction with western medicine, homoeopathy is an effective therapy.
So, why should the NHS close down one option for patients? The NHS is well-known for being over-burdened, having hospitals with inadequate facilities and beds, suffering neglect in the most basic of areas e.g. MRSA and hygiene, etc. If homoeopathy provides a service that can keep people healthier, recover more quickly, avoid or get out of hospitals sooner, surely that alone is worth its investment.
Homoeopathic community
Emailing and speaking with homoeopaths and clients revealed that most people believe that homoeopathy will remain very low on the NHS funding list. They believe that funding for homoeopathy will only increase slowly over time as more and more people become aware of complementary therapies and start demanding them from the NHS. People's awareness increase for several reasons:
- Dissatisfaction with the service provided by the NHS
- Lack of solutions for particular problems from western medicine
- Complications of long term medication
- A desire to find natural and holistic ways to improve health
- Increased publicity and interest about complementary therapies
The homoeopathic community is a resilient one, with personal experience of the healing power of homoeopathy being at its core. NHS funding or not, that experience cannot be taken away and people tend to stay with what works for them, and tell others about it. It is how homoeopathy has survived to the present day.
Next month
Look out for my article next month on chronic fatigue. If you have any requests for conditions, remedies or homoeopathic matters you would like to see in future articles of the month, please email me.
|
Articles |
