Rosie
Actually I see a few sides to this issue! On a purely health economic perspective, I used to get really wound up about homeopathy specifically being funded on the NHS because of the lack of evidence and the fact that because its use is established it doesn't face the same scrutiny in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness as conventional/new medicines.
From additional perspectives, I think the actual cost of homeopathy is a fraction of NHS costs and there is probably a lot more waste of resources elsewhere in the NHS and probably has a decent placebo effect if nothing else.
And it's generally considered safe, if not actually effective beyond placebo effect . I know of someone who uses a homeopathic anti-malaria remedy instead of conventional antimalarials and I think he's bonkers In this clinical situation I'd want to be relying on a randomised clinical trial that demonstrates clinical efficacy. It's one thing taking homeopathic remedies for self care of self-limiting minor symptoms but another altogether relying on it to prevent a potentially life-threatening condition.
But, the NHS has limited funding, so I feel that treatments with more robust evidence should take priority, because for every £ we spend on something that money isn't there for something else. There is always an opportunity cost so to be responsible for society as a whole, in terms of getting the best patient health outcomes within the budget, we should be choosing to invest in the treatments that have the most robust evidence and are also cost-effective.
And then again, I know there are many potential treatments that don't have or can't have the gold standard in terms of evidence base. E.g. very rare diseases, old medicines off patent being used in new clinical areas but without the backing of pharma to fund new studies, etc.
And I also think that western medicine is catching up with Eastern medicine and while we dismiss stuff as not being evidence based, it may simply be that we don't yet have the science to understand it or no one has bothered to do the science yet. I think the ancient wisdom of Chinese and ayurverdic was based on observation and there's a lot to be said for that. But these days, it's dismissed as anecdotal and society demands more robust evidence. I recall seeing a fascinating programme a few years ago about acupuncture being tested in a functional MRI machine, which showed that it was effective for pain relief, but only if the needles were inserted in the right place, at the right angle and depth according to standard practice. It would be easy to poo-poo it without this scientific evidence of efficacy. I'm sure it was only n=1, but that allows a hypothesis to be tested and an evidence base developed with time and funding.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel a tad conflicted!