Homeopathic Harms Vol 6: Self-awareness & self-criticism

One of the most important mechanisms that people have for regulating their own behaviour is feedback from other people.  This happens from the day we’re born – babies learn that some behaviours earn a smile so they repeat them; toddlers learn that other behaviours get attention, so they repeat them.  As adults we do exactly the same thing – we learn behaviours that make us successful friends, partners or parents based on how people react to us.

This carries over into professional life too, and in some professions is even put into words as codes of conduct, or ethics.  We learn what is and is not acceptable by seeing how people respond to our actions.

Well, that’s a lovely little snippet about human behaviour, but what does it have to do with harm caused by homeopathy?  Sadly, lots.  Homeopaths style themselves as health professionals, meaning people trust and respect them.  In other health professions – let’s take conventional doctors as an example – if an individual gives poor advice or commits an act that’s seen as misconduct, there are mechanisms in place to deal with that.  They can be sanctioned or struck off, re-educated, suspended, and any number of other things.  Crucially, their peers support this process; if a doctor suspects misconduct by another they can act on it, formally or informally.  The same is true in other health professions – nurses, pharmacists, you name it.

So surely homeopaths do the same?  Well…no.

The Society of Homeopaths exists, and has a code of conduct and ethics.  However there’s no requirement whatsoever for a homeopath to be a member of the society, and I couldn’t find anything on their website about disciplinary processes or how to complain about a member. When asked to publicly condemn behaviour that is clearly unacceptable in individuals trusted to give health advice, the society has consistently failed to do so.

But the society doesn’t represent every homeopath, and in any case these are independent people – surely individuals have spoken out about poor behaviour among their peers?  I’d like to say yes, but again, the answer’s no.

When Anthony Pinkus was found by BBC reporters to be promoting homeopathic vaccines (after previously being investigated by the General Pharmaceutical Council for similar behaviour), his fellow pharmacists were outraged at what they saw as acts that put patients at risk and brought their profession into disrepute.  His fellow homeopaths?  Not a peep.

When various homeopaths were found to be promoting homeopathy for the treatment of rape, domestic violence and homosexuality, the general public were rightly angered at the outrageously offensive claims.  Their fellow homeopaths gave barely a whimper.

When Penelope Dingle died after suffering months of excruciating pain because her homeopath told her it was all in her head, the coroner’s report was damning.  The homeopathic community was oddly silent.

When homeopaths peddle their remedies to incredibly vulnerable people in Africa for the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS, their peers say nothing about it.  However Peter Chappell, a founder member of the Society of Homeopaths is all in favour, and in fact produces his own range of remedies, as well as others for  malaria, dengue fever, and goodness knows what else.

When Nelsons in London were found to have such poor manufacturing standards that there was broken glass present on their production line, and one in six vials of remedy actually had no homeopathic ingredient added, the Food and Drug Administration (the American drug regulator) pulled no punches in their report.  The UK homeopathic community, of which Nelsons is a part, said nothing.

There are doubtless many, many more examples just like these, but I think I’ve hammered the point home well enough.  And I am sure that some homeopaths who read this will be rather offended, because maybe they did oppose these things; but that’s not enough.  If homeopaths want to be seen as trustworthy providers of complementary therapies they need to change this pattern, they need to be vocal.  Where poor behaviour is evident, they need to shout first and loudest about it, like the pharmacists did with Anthony Pinkus. They need to scream from the rooftops that unethical advice, endangerment of people’s safety is against everything that they stand for, and that an individual who does those things doesn’t represent their community.  Even leaving aside the problems regarding lack of efficacy, how else can anyone ever trust that they can visit a homeopath and receive honest, ethical advice?

Advertisements

Posted on April 4, 2013, in Homeopathy Harms and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. One of the tenets of a good debate is that both parties be informed about the topic being debated. or, especially, history. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital saved thousands of lives during epidemics of cholera, yellow fever and many other illnesss over the last 100 years. Over a hundred thousand board certified homeopathic medical doctors practice world wide. The (highly conservative) Swiss government just concluded, after an exhaustive multi year study that homeopathy is effective and should be incorporated into their medical system. Homeopathic remedies have proved effective in babies and animals, and thousands of farmers rely on it to prevent and treat disease. So much for placebo effect.
    The author might rather have spent his vitriol on criticisizing the pharmaceutical industry whose products are a leading cause of death in the UK.

    Anyone with an open mind could learn about the effectiveness of homeopathy. Here is a partial list of studies which cover many areas of homeopathy.

    http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/

    Alan V. Schmukler

    • The author appreciates your comment, but is certainly not a he, nor particularly vitriolic. The author does apologise for the delay in publishing the comment however; it was filtered to spam for some reason.

      There is evicdence that lives were saved in the early days of homeopathy simply because it was less invasive than the contemporary conventional medicine. When leeches and blood-letting were the norm, it is not surprising that sometimes the treatment could be more deadly than the disease. Homeopathic treatment had better success rates simply because it did nothing to further weaken already sick people.

      In addition, the (highly conservative) Swiss government did not author the report that is attributed to them, nor is it unbiased. I haven’t the time to go into it, but there is a long, detailed account here: http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/

      Homeopathy has been anecdotally seen to have benefit in babies and animals because since the recipients can’t comment, the results of these treatments are reported by the people who administer them. These are clearly people with a vested interest in seeing it work, and are not free of the normal human biases. I am not aware of any good quality research that shows otherwise.

      And as a final comment, this was not a post about whether homeopathy works. This was a post about how homeopaths do not condemn poor behaviour by other homeopaths when they undoubtedly should. By missing (or ignoring) that point you appear to have just tried to defend that practice, which merely adds further weight to the point. Ta for that.

      • I got the exact same comment on an anti-homeopathy post of mine recently – I suspect it’s spam or something similar.

        Keep it up – love your stuff!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: