To think the NHS should stop spending £4 million a year on Homeopathy ?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Have been on the IVF thread in discussions of the day where understandably the issue of the NHS's scare resources and how these should best be spent came up.
Someone mentioned Homeopathy as one questionable area which currently recieves NHS funds.

Having googled the subject I found out that the NHS does indeed fund 4 Homeopathic hospitals in London, Bristol, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and spends £4 million a year on homeopathic treatments.

Having been a psychiatric nurse myself I recognise the value of taking a holistic approach to health and the value of counseling as an approach.
But I feel that the very unscientific and old-fashioned beliefs of homeopathy really have no place in an over-stretched 21st century NHS.
I'd be happy to see the hospitals converted to a simple holistic and counseling approach instead.

So what do you think and ....
AIBU ?!

Do you know what alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called?
Medicine.

lyndie I think that's a pretty provocative point to make.

I very much doubt you would advise that people go off and have a good pray once you've run out of ideas, which is effectively what a referral to a homeopath is.

I don't doubt that some people do benefit from the one to one attention that seeing a homeopath brings, but I don't even need to argue about the medication. It is proven not to work, and has been proven not to work again and again.

If one to one attention and time to discuss a specific medical problem against the context of the individual as a whole is what's needed let's talk about that, but don't chuck in some sugar pills for good measure.

I am amazed, a sane thread on the great con of homeopathy, or a glass of water to most normal people!

I find your thinking here slightly wooley lyndie ....

I'd rather my GP and I had a careful look together at the evidence based statistics before either embarking on homeopathy or that last round of chemo (that is probably not going to work)
Then make a considered judgement on the best way forward taking everything, including preferences and feelings, into account.

I guess some people are more intuitive about these things than perhaps I am ?

YANBU

dollyindub words fail me. As someone who was diagnosed with jia at the age of 4 and is still a sufferer, I can only tell you how ill informed and dangerous your post is. Today I work with people with arthritis and chronic pain teaching them self.management of their condition stories like yours which convince people to quit their meds, consisting themselves to a world of pain.

Your username suggests you are in Dublin. If that is the case, I would like the name of the person who treated this boy so I can find out more. I winder is it the same person who told us the arthritis is caused by drinking tap water.

If we follow homeopathic principles then the less that's spent on homeopathy the more effective it will become. Provided we remember to hit the money on a leather pillow a set number of times of course.

HaHa Snorbs

Actually I don't routinely refer patients to homeopaths or suggest that they seek out complementary therapies. You are wrong to make assumptions on that front that I would do that. We are taught exactly as you suggest to take a history, make a diagnosis, agree a management plan based on current evidence with a patient and follow them up.

If a patient approached me to ask about complementary therapies I would be able to advise them on the lack of current evidence but ultimately if they wanted to go ahead it would be up to them.

I was certainly not suggesting that people pray instead of taking medicine! But there is no evidence that God exists, should we fund and respect religion within the NHS when there is no proof? Of course we should, we respect people's beliefs and incorporate them into their care. Any that's why complementary therapies will remain available on the NHS.

I went to a homeopath once. It did wonders for my postnatal depression. The only problem was that I pissed myself laughing.

Evidence based medicine has demonstrated unequivocally that flouride is bad for us and shouldn't be in drinking water.

Having said that, homeopathy is water. Can't remember the gentleman's name, but a professor from Exeter university has proved that it really doesn't work. A 2010 Commons report again demonstrated no evidence other than the placebo effect.

this interesting reading, as does <a class="break-all" href="//mwww.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2akes" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this

Dogs lift the spirits of ill people and improve their stats, but the NHS doesn't provide them.

YANBU

Although, the placebo effect can be very powerful.
It could probably be offered more cheaply, though.

All the doctors have to do is prescribe aspirin and claim that it has wonderful effects in the disease.

I was once involved as a volunteer subject in a clinical trial at the London Homeopathic Hospital, because they wanted this very expensive treatment funded by the NHS. Either I had the placebo, or the treatment just didn't work.
Still, I was told off the record that the results were not good.
These things never get published. :(

Yes. They should stop. Immediately.

I didnt realise they spent any money onhomepoathy, my mum is a believer in it, load of rubbish imo

Of course it shouldn't be funded. If its proven to work, its called medicine, not alternative medicine.

I dont think the NHS should fund any medicines that dont have a solid evidence base behind them (they shouldnt be approved without that really...!) unless it is part of a clinical trial.

Ben Miller mentioned Homeopathy on Room 101 recently.
It is certainly an interesting way to spend £4million, I totally agree that if they had to continue to provide it as a health service it should be done through the patients GP! How can they justify running hospitals at such a large cost? Because if these treatments work then surely there is no need to use them in such a setting, and we would hear more about how certain treatments initially started out as homeopathic would we not?

eleanorbusby
In response to your questions:
I think more midwives should be employed.
I was a first time mum and the midwife at the GP's was fantastic. The midwives at the hospital were definitely not so good. They were completely overworked and did not have time to speak to me at all.
I have a high tolerance for pain and even when I feel terrible I'm not a screamer / crier. BUT, when I say I need pain relief - I definitely need pain relief! I had a 32 hour labour and was only 'allowed' gas and air 14 hours in after having spent 4 hours contracting for a full minute, every minute. The reason being that I was still only 3cm dilated. So what??? It really hurt!!!
The experience could have been improved just by someone talking to me.
I will (like a pp) be having an elcs this time as 32 hours, an episiotomy and tear and a bad repair job, mean I feel too fragile to do it again.

Well, I agree completely with evidence based treatment. But what I find interesting is that so many 'rationalists' who proclaim to support an evidence based philosophy, still find it OK to focus on one area, such as homeopathy, yet ignore evidence when it doesn't suit them. For example, the NHS spends about 3 BILLION each year on alcohol-related illness yet we still allow alcohol advertising and support the drink industry. And I don't find many people who would suggest that anyone who drinks excessively and then has an alcohol related illness should be expected to fund it privately (despite the evidence demonstrating the link).

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of a successful health system. Homeopathy is so far away from evidence-based medicine it's beyond a joke.

If you want to choose homeopathy, help yourself to tap water. It's a shed load cheaper too.

LOVED homeopathic A&E!

All I can say is that if water has a memory then we are all drinking an awful lot of each other's piss.

All I can say is that if water has a memory then we are all drinking an awful lot of each other's piss.

not only...

But there is no evidence that God exists, should we fund and respect religion within the NHS when there is no proof? Of course we should, we respect people's beliefs and incorporate them into their care

That is an absurd parallel to draw. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of philosophy of science can distinguish between an unknowable, untestable hypothesis (such as the existence of a god) which evidence can neither refute or support, and a testable, scientific question such as "does homeopathy have a demonstrable positive effect". The latter has been repeatedly investigated and has not been shown to be effective. The former, well we all debate it, but we can't even begin to test the untestable, so it's not a scientific question.

It would be completely unacceptable for a Big Pharma company to sell a drug which does not have evidence to demonstrate some degree of efficacy - so why is it acceptable for homeopaths?

I'd like lyndie as my GP.