People killed, or otherwise maimed, by homeopathy

[Tango Charlie]

I don't think he's saying that he would do that. He's saying that homeopathic doctors give people water' date=' telling them it will help them (like real medicine).[/quote']

 

You're all the family I need, Jackie-D.

[estairella]

My father is both a medical doctor, a surgeon actually (and an admirable one I have to add - i'm not trying to brag or anything, but I honestly admire him as a doctor, he's one of the best ones i've ever met) and a homeopathic doctor.

 

Homeopathy is a very ancient medical practice that can be amazingly effective, for certain conditions, IF PRACTICED PROPERLY by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

I second this. My grandfather, is a homeopathic doctor, and his drugs are effective. Clearly the experience of the practitioner and their training is a BIG factor. That's why I get the heeby-jeebies when people just make blanket statements all the time. Keep an open mind. Learn to see the good in both sides, and then as future doctors, integrate the best of both worlds. Don't close off potential solutions just because they are against your belief systems.

 

 

Science is based on the search for truth and reality. To argue that evidence-based medicine (i.e. science) is a 'belief' is laughable. Yes, most doctors do believe in doing something based on reality. If that makes them close-minded, then thank the stars!

 

Also, that linked article? The guy works in a homeopathic center. Hardly an unbiased source. (There's also a "Journal of Dilution Research"... peer-reviewed has its downsides, like when all your peers are idiots...)

 

/Tango Charlie basically has it right.

[orange123]

 

Science is based on the search for truth and reality. To argue that evidence-based medicine (i.e. science) is a 'belief' is laughable. Yes, most doctors do believe in doing something based on reality. If that makes them close-minded, then thank the stars!

 

Also, that linked article? The guy works in a homeopathic center. Hardly an unbiased source. (There's also a "Journal of Dilution Research"... peer-reviewed has its downsides, like when all your peers are idiots...)

 

/Tango Charlie basically has it right.

 

Whoa there! Hold your horses. Did I say that homeopathy is better than conventional medicine? No. All I'm saying is that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Cnussey, in the other thread just like this one, said that when her kids were teething (or something like that) the only thing that helped them was homeopathy. Clearly then, homeopathy DOES have some advantages, especially where conventional medicine fails (be it for drug toxicity issues, or because the patient is too young etc. etc.). I'm only advocating for the best of both worlds. Don't attack.

 

Also, this guy has published in the LANCET about the benefits of homeopathy as well. Did you read the linked article? He mentions it in the first paragraph or so. Clearly, I am NOT going to sit here and rifle through the literature just so that I can come up with sources that please everyone. I picked the first thing that came up on pubmed when I searched.

 

I have nothing more to say, except that both have benefits and drawbacks, and it is upto us to take things that work, discard treatments that don't, and apply the most effective treatments as per the case requirment for the betterment of our patients.

[Laika]

What? are you for real? I can only assume that you missed the bioethics lecture about not lying to your patients or giving them false hope when none exists. It's not ok to give people something that you don't think works and tell them its going to work if you don't believe it yourself.

 

Luckily, that never happens.

[Mei_Mei_girl]

Interesting...in lecture yesturday the professor (physician) said that less than 15% of practised medicine (main-stream medicine) is actually evidence-based in terms of having been verified with randomized controlled trials..

 

Just some food for thought. We do things because they seem to work over and over again, but really just how "scientific" is medicine if it hasn't been fully applied to the rigors of scientific study we demand in other fields?

 

cheers

[Atreides]

While this thread made me realize that I clearly do not know what homeopathy is, I would second the point made by a previous posters on the fact that all conventional medicine is not technically evidence based, if we are using evidence based to simply mean that something has been clearly proven based on a variety of well-designed RCTs. But that being said, why exactly should it be? Though the RCT is definitely an excellent way to determine the efficacy of a treatment they are not always appropriate. There are times when to use one would be unethical or not feasible. For example, though I have not researched this, I somewhat doubt that the use of appendectomy to treat appendicitis was every proven, via RCT, to be effective. Nor am I arguing that it should be. And while this example is extreme there have been other examples, typically with public health initiatives, where it was not feasible to do a well controlled RCT and resulting in people dimissing out of hand a potentially beneficial practice. Thus, there are several alternatives to conventional medicine whose scope of practice do not lend themselves to RCT or whose practitioners are opposed to western evidence based practices, but this does not mean these practices are necessarily without merit. Of course, there are alternatives to RCT to determine the efficacy that are considerably better then "I say this works so you should believe me" and I am not advocating blindly believing every form of "alternative" proposed.

 

That being said, I think any product, procedure, etc. that is used to promote health should be regulated in some form, because any substance that works is going to have just as many risks as a conventional product as the chemical substance that is working will be the same whether it is natural or not. This because a bit more difficult with procedures or devices (light, exercises, etc.). But, though I am not qualified to judge homeopathy, I am concerned when individuals broaden their disdain to include all forms of "alternative" medicine as this limits the options someone has to help their patient. It is important to keep and open mind and realize that not every alternative method of medical practice is devoid of merit, particularly in the situations described above. And not every form of effective alternative lends itself to marketing by "big pharm", for example exercise. And for those who say something like exercise does not require assistance would be surprised at how many variables there are for providing a good exercise program for someone with some chronic illnesses. I do agree that anyone who exploits those who are desperate and suffering from chronic illness is deplorable, but hopefully that is a minority of those practicing any form of health care.

[mbene085]

This didn't happen to anyone famous and it wasn't in the papers, so I'm going to be vague enough to protect patient confidentiality.

 

A resident whom I know and trust recently told me about a relatively young patient who was coming in for a cancer resection [i won't say of what type]. The patient had been treated by a naturopathic doctor for over a year before his symptoms became severe enough that he went to an allopathic doctor as well. At this point, his cancer [which was of a type with a normally very high surgical cure rate] had already (and recently) gone metastatic and his prognosis was extremely poor. The resident made the astute observation that, if it had been an allopathic doc (say, a family doc) who had treated this patient symptomatically for 1-2 years while his cancer was metastasizing, he would be subject to lawsuits, investigation, and likely a revoking of his medical license.

 

The naturopathic "doctor" caused a delay of treatment which essentially killed this patient. I think a great quote is "They don't know what they don't know." The patient put his trust in his naturopath's care, just as patients put their trust in an allopathic doctor's care. The difference here is that the naturopath didn't have the training or the tools to make an accurate diagnosis. What had been treated as fatigue, stress, hormonal imbalance - or whatever the naturopath was thinking - turned out to be a cancer that progressed from easily curable to a death sentence. Yes, the patient had the option to go to an allopathic doctor at any point...but the scary thing is that he felt he already had a doctor, so why would he need another one?

 

I realize this thread is long (I didn't read it all), and that a more general discussion of homeopathy seems to have taken place, but this story is a response to the OP's first post.

 

Signs of this cancer would have been easily detected with a full physical and CBC, and any allopathic doctor would have referred the patient for imaging that would have made this an open-and-shut case.

 

I'm all for embracing the concept that allopathic medicine doesn't always take a holistic approach, and that there are things we should be exploring and such - but calling these people doctors lends them unearned credibility. Credibility that killed this patient, and who knows how many more.

[Tango Charlie]

story

 

Whoever thought of calling them naturopathic doctors rather than shaman or witch doctors or whatever they were called beforehand is an absolute genius. These people would be on the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that they somehow managed to get themselves called 'doctor', and nobody would be even dreaming of granting them more and more actual medical responsibilities, either.

 

Also, how do you think the other side might tell that story? Pt was fine whilst in my care, went to see an MD and shortly thereafter succumbed to illness. Sounds about right, I'd say.