To ask whether or not people here believe in homeopathy - at the risk of floggin a dead horse...

[MistyB]

Winter: Homeopaths are not unqualified - they follow 3 or 4 year degree courses including anatomy and physiology.

Alistron1: The principle of Homeopathy has been known since the time of Hippocrates from Greece, the founder of medicine, around 450 BC.

I am tempted to answer the bottles falling on the floor question but feel that you would ridicule the answer in the way that the Spanish Inquisition determined that the theory that "the sun was imobile and at the centre of the universe" was "foolish and absurd".

They are deceived. They are not aware if they are taking a placebo.

It is not perfectly possible.

"Not even when it makes them better?"

No - it's like I said earlier in the thread. This kind of deception for the "good" of the patient goes hand in hand with practices like lying to patients about their diagnosis or prognosis. In the fifties it was very common to tell a husband the truth about his wife's terminal breast cancer, but tell the wife that everything is just fine and she'd be home for Christmas.

I'm sure this probably made the patient feel much better. But this is no longer considered acceptable.

It's not about making them feel better. It's about making them better. You want to deny poor people the benefits you yourself enjoyed, in that case. For their own good, of course.

But yes, you do have to take this line to be consistent, and you are more consistent that first appeared. Even though it means the above.

Gooseberry - they are NOT deceived.

If you honestly can't see the ethical difference between telling someone they may be getting a sugar pill, or telling them that homeopathic remedies work when they are proven not to, then you need to examine your moral compass.

Inviting someone to be part of a trial in which they know exactly what the possible outcomes are, is not deception.

Persuading someone to pay quite large sums of money for unproven remedies IS.

Drinking large amounts of red wine on a weekend makes me feel better.

It doesn't mean I think the state should sponsor it for people to poor to buy the wine themselves.

There are few conditions that the placebo effect actually cures - most would usually be self limiting anyhow. It is also not consistent as to on whom and when it works. And it's not a placebo effect or nothing. You get the placebo effect when you treat therapeutically - as well as treating the illness that the patient presents with.

Exactly visiter. It's all about informed consent!

You are confusing ethical issues with the issue of belief for the purposes of placebo.

The person is deceived in that they don't know if they are taking a placebo. There is a one in two/three generally chance it will be the real deal. The belief that it could be produces the effect.

I should think that level of belief probably equates to the ambiguity of homeopathy, where the patient is told there's no active ingredient in the product.

Really don't think comments on my moral compass are acceptable from someone who thinks poor people should be excluded (because it's good for them) from health benefits which she enjoys.

No. Gooseberry - YOU are confusing the ethical issues because you fail to realise that this is not about the position of the patient but the position of the practitioner.

In a medical trial the practitioner tells the absolute truth and his duty to his patient remains sacrosanct. They even have a duty to halt a trial if they start to believe that it would benefit all patients to be in the "real" group.

In homeopathy the practitioner is leading his patient to believe something which is NOT true. That is the difference.

Youngvisiter: has red wine cured a painful skin condition for you? If it did, don't you think that others with a similar painful skin condition ought to be allowed to benefit?

You are (possibly not deliberately) conflating a number of issues.

"Feeling better" with real physiological improvement.

Deception for the purposes of placebo with deception for the purposes of enrichment.

It's difficult to separate them and requires some intellectual discipline but I think it can be done. Well, I can manage it.

Gooseberry,

The point is that the skin condition would have equally or more improved if you'd given therapeutic medication. You'd have got the benefits of placebo plus the treatment effect. No need for deception.

I think you have an element of blind faith in conventional pharmaceutical science which I do not share, not without good reason.

Anyhow, your last post is an example of the conflation.

The patient does not have "the absolute truth". The patient does not know if he is receiving placebo.

"The point is that the skin condition would have equally or more improved if you'd given therapeutic medication. "

This probably isn't true. Many patients turn to homeopathy because nothing else works (as in TEETH -- tried everything else, try homeopathy). Anecdotally, this is certainly often the case: maybe visiter can fill us in with her experience.

For the last time - THE ETHICAL ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT THE PATIENT.

As I clearly stated - in a medical trial the PRACTITIONER is telling the absolute truth.

A homeopathic NHS would require practitioners to misrepresent the truth.

That's the deal-breaker for me.

GooseBB, sorry but there is absolutely no justification for homeopathy.

There could be a justification for the NHS to use sugar pills if they are proven to work with informed consent, but this will require scientific support.

You are still doing it. The conflation.

I see it differently. The real, active, benefit to the patient may be worth the price of a level of deception. Particularly with homeopathy, where the patient generally knows there is no active ingredient.

However, my view is quite fluid, as I'm not a user of homeopathy myself -- ironically, as a defender, while you are, although a naysayer. How did that happen?

I'm just happy to have a sensible conversation about it instead of the abuse it normally seems to provoke.

Do you mind telling us your experience of conventional treatment?

All sorts of things benefitted my eczema - holidays by the sea, massage, conventional drugs. I tried homeopathy during the course of trying a lot of other things. Including wine, relaxation, sunbeds. I have absolutely no idea whether the homeopathy worked any more or any less than any one of these other elements. Anecdote is absolutely useless in this case as in any other.

What helped the most? A long holiday. Do I think this could/should be available on the NHS? No.

What cured my eczema? Passing my exams and leaving university. Again, do I think this is something which could/should be available on the NHS? No.

Simply because something helps a medical complaint, it doesn't make it a "cure" and it doesn't mean that the government could or should provide it. NICE exists for the sole purposes of deciding which of the many, many things which help medical conditions should be funded. We cannot fund them all.

HH, don't apologise, you're wrong anyway on both counts so not to worry

gosebb - "I think you have an element of blind faith in conventional pharmaceutical science"

There is no 'blind faith' required, because the drugs are proven to work. While there may be variations in the individual, the drug contains a known active ingredient proven to work.. unlike homeopathy which is based on blind faith alone.

"I've actually used homepathy for eczema with good results - I remain completely convinced it was a placebo cure, but I was happy to pay for the placebo."

Excuse me, I was misled by this.

anyhoo this has been a stimulating hour or two, so I'm off to bed for that other great cure-all - a good night's sleep.

tra la

Oh dear H, isn't it your bedtime? Temper temper.

Im off to bed also. Thanks for the debate,

Goodnight all.