Homeopathy in Childbirth - objections from hospital midwife

[Rolf]

I have booked a doula for my (hopefully) imminent labour. We have been to see a homeopath together and plan for her to throw remedies in my mouth whilst I'm in labour.

I was told yesterday by a very reliable source (my hairdresser!!) that a friend of his recently delivered at the same hospital and when her doula started giving her homeopathic remedies, the midwife got very worked up and asked her to stop. I'm not sure whether or not she did, but the hospital is now undertaking an internal inquiry (whether generally or into this particular case, I'm not sure). The patient apparently was perfectly happy with her care from both the hospital and the doula so I think it's for the purposes of clarification rather than a big witch-hunt.

I'm slightly concerned that because of this there will be generally twitchy atmosphere about someone not employed by the trust giving a patient any sort of medication. I've added to my birth plan "I would like to use homeopathic remedies in labour and am happy for my doula to administer them". Do you think that's adequate or should I go further? Should I write out a list of the remedies I'm taking in with me, the name of the homeopath who dispensed them and a more sweeping waiver? Or is that the litigator in me speaking?

I have quick labours so won't be able to waste time debating with them. My doula is well-known at the hospital and I think will be very good at this sort of advocacy. And I have a good relationship with the hospital although as it's a big teaching hospital there's every chance that in labour I won't be looked after by anyone I know.

Any thoughts would be v welcome.

If you find it weary Cristina, why read them? This, for many people (not just Jimjams!) is realism. Conventional doesn't always cut it and more than occasionally, gets it very, very wrong.

Well I've made plenty of positive comments about individual doctors over the years as well.

And if you know all about my son's situation then I guess it would be fairly easy to work out why many of my comments about medicine are negative. It's not really rocket science is it?

Unless you want me (and the other's who make anti-medicine comments - usually with very good reason) to lie then I'm not sure what the answer is.

It's gets fairly wearing reading the sneery snide comments about the gullible fools who use homeopathy as well.

I find switching off the computer helps.

Why read them? Because I don't know what they'll say before I read them, will I? I don't deliberately go on threads to get me riled up e.g. I stay away from Religious threads but if it had a title that made it look like more than God stuff, i might open it.

Okay, bye then, switch it off. I have work to do too.

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2
Brilliant article on homeopathy. Read it and see.

(As our drinking water is recycled I'm seriously hoping water does not have a memory!!)

Oh I can't be arsed to read Ben Goldacre. He has written such crap about the MMR that's just blatantly wrong. I'm afraid it shook my trust in him.

He has a real thing about homeopathy being used to treat HIV in Africa. The homeopath I mentioned earlier who persuaded someone to use AZT was working in Africa on the project that Ben Goldacre has got his knickers in a twist about. I don't think he has a very good understanding of how the project works at all. It works alongside conventional medicine (and indeed along side traditional African medicine that many people use). It doesn't aim to replace it. In a relatively rich country like Botswana patients are able to access drugs like AZT (because the govt pays for it- not the case in all countries) and then also use homeopathy and traditional medicine. They can access homeopathy because the homeopaths are volunteering their services. The users queue to see the homeopaths and are enthusiastic about the project. No-one is forced to attend.

The homeopath I know stayed with people whilst they died from AIDS etc. How awful huh? What a blood sucking leech. She wasn't being paid for it either - she was paying to go there. I don't really understand what it is that offends Ben Goldacre so much about that project as it only seems to do good. Both in terms the direct work from the project itself and the indirect work in supporting the work of conventional medicine (such as encouraging people to take the conventional drugs they're given).

Here's some info about the project he hates so much It might be of interest to some.

If you follow up on some of the links to the letters you'll see how much talk there is about working in partnership with local agencies and also how the increasing availability of anti retro viral drugs is discussed in positive terms. Homeopathy is then used to relieve the side effects of those drugs.

You say ARVs are freely available in Botswana, but given how expensive these drugs are in the UK, and what a much higher % of the population in Botswana or other African countries are infected, i wonder if ARVs are really easily accessible to all people with HIV infection. If not, they may well believe that H pills are similar to ARVs, especially if closer to their won culture and tradition.

I liked the article v much (Goldacre's).

No that's not true Cristina. Botswana has diamonds which is why it has the money to spend on ARV's. It is the only African country (AFAIK) that has made ARV's freely available. Its the only one that can afford to. I have been to a talk on this and once patients get to a certain stage (I think assessed on cell counts or some other measure) they are entitled to receive free ARV's.

They are self-referred to the homeopathy clinic either from the medical doctors (it started working alongside them) or by word of mouth.

In Botswana they're apparently in general not remotely interested in how medication works. Which is why they've always used traditional African medicine alongside western medicine. And why it is important that the homeopaths do encourage the use of ARV's - as they do. Does it really matter if there's a belief that remedies are the same as ARV's if there is no other alternative? It just provides another means by which the patients might be introduced to the idea of ARVs. Was certainly the case in the example I've given.

"Does it really matter if there's a belief that remedies are the same as ARV's if there is no other alternative?" I meant that people may not have access to ARVs but have access to homeopathic pills and think that they act similarly so won't go for the ARVs since they aren't easily available anyway. I didn't know Botswana had a good public health system.

Here's some info about when patients can access the drugs.

It started in 2001 with drugs made available for pregnant women and has expanded since.

Botswana has a very overstretched public health system. Which is of course being further stretched by HIV. That was a big part of the reason for starting the homeopathy project. To provide support for these massively overstretched resources.

However it seems as though people will walk 100's of km for treatment (both homeopathic and conventional- and I think they go for both at once).

And as I've said repeatedly when the person I know came across a man who despite being very ill had walked a very long distance to see her and was refusing ARVs, she treated him and persuaded him to go to the clinic and accept the ARVs. I'm not going to tell you how she did it as it seems too personal to put out there, but its the sort of thing that would have been very difficult for a conventional doctor to do because of time restraints.

The aim of the project right from the beginning has been to support existing services, not replace them, and the importance of ARV's in treating HIV is understood and recognised and their use is encouraged.

Thanks, JimJams. I'll read up on it. DH works for an oil consultancy who works in Africa and he's much better informed than me.

And that's just how it should be.

Herbalism has some merit. Aromatherapy has some merit (if nothing else, a nice massage with nice smelling oil tends to make a person (except if they are like me and absolutely hate massage) feel better.

Homeopathy is like voodoo, astrology, crystal healing and iridology - a completely useless load of wank for which some practitioners charge extortionate sums of money from stupid vulnerable gullible desperate people.
All woo-peddlers fall in to three categories: crooks, lunatics and well-meaning idiots. Of the three, you are best off with the crook as what he/she wants is your money so he/she will want to make the treatment pleasant and non-damaging so you will keep on coming back. the idiot may do you harm inadvertently, and the lunatic may do you harm out of.. well, lunacy.

oh this is so dull. Many people use homeopathy without ever seeing a practitioner. Many get the remedies for free from their GP. Of all the alternative therapies homeopathy is one of the cheapest. It's not a get rich quick scheme. If you want to make money as a CAM practitioner you'd be better off becoming something like a chiropractor - you can charge more for a much shorter session.

But this seems to be the way with homeopathy. We'll slag it off for what we think it is. So:

(1) we'll slag off the Maun project for persuading people to not use AVR's when it does nothing of the sort In fact it does the opposite and encourages the use of ARV's
Positive comments about ARV's and about working in partnership with conventional medics are easily found on the website.For example this comment from a newly qualified homeopath who worked out there: "Also, having seen the extent to which ARVs and homeopathy complement each other, I realised that collaborating with allopaths can bring very positive results for patients." - it's hardly slagging off standard treatment).

(2) We'll slag it off as a waste of NHS resources - except oh maybe it doesn't

(3) We'll slag it off as being some quick get rich scheme - when there's no evidence for that at all. My whole family sees a homeopath- we have about 3 consultations maximum per year (although she does give me free advice during acute illnesses). She is not getting rich from us.

(4) OK in that case we'll try the 'homeopath's tell people to stop cancer drugs' approach. Except that's not true either. Every homeopath is trained in when to refer- what symptoms to look out for. The last review I read of a book about homeopathy and cancer was about using homeopathy to relieve the symptoms of chemotherapy etc.

And when that all fails we'll just tell people (who - whatever you think about homeopathy are doing no harm to anyone) that if they use it they're stupid idiots. Nice.

I prefer:

(5) We'll slag it off because it's nonsense

and

(6) We'll slag it off because it doesn't work

JimJams - what's got into you with this Maun project? Nobody has referred to it on here but you. You have compiled a list of accusations that haven't been brought on this thread. Sounds dramatic, but it's mostly in your head. You keep escalating this.

It was mentioned briefly in the Ben Goldacre article. It something I happen to know a bit about. If you google you'll find it's come under attack- as something that prevents people accessing ARV's which is utter bollocks.
(2), (3) and (4) are accusations that have been made on this thread. Although I agree most of the attacks have been of the 'only an idiot would use it' variety.

So how about the people who use prozac? If that's just placebo are we going to attack them for being idiots? (especially as it is something that comes with pretty hefty side effects)

Prozac is prescription-only. I'd hope it would stop being prescribed if proven to be not effective. The latest (Spring 2008) was that it works in moderate-severe depression.

Prozac does contain an active substance, and it actually does something when ingested.

Whether or not it is as effective for all types of depression is a separate issue.

Your 'remedies' have nothing in them (except sugar) and they do nothing.

Apples and oranges.

"They do nothing."

Well sorry to rain on your parade, but the vast majority of people who use these therapies say otherwise. They say these therapies make them feel better and improve the quality of their lives.

You can argue about clinical effectiveness until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with an individual's perception of how they feel and how much they value a treatment.

"Prozac does contain an active substance, and it actually does something when ingested."

Yes - so does rat poison. Doesn't mean you want to take it!

I've had mixed results with homeopathy over a period of 11 years. It seemed to prevent my daughter's ear infection from recurring when she was an infant. Arnica also helped me heal after my caesarian (and my GP recommended it).

However, my son was seen by homeopath over a period of years from infancy onwards for various ailments. They treated him for excema over some months, but he actually then developed asthma, considered by homeopaths to be much more serious, as it is 'internal whereas the excema is on the surface.

I didn't go back again.

I have been reading this thread with great interest and felt it was about time I put my opinion forward. I haven't read every single post (there are so many!) but it seems that a recurring theme is "ok, it can't be proved, but if it works then who cares?".

Well, I care. I think if a substance is claimed to have a certain effect then people should be able to have some reassurance that there is factual accuracy in that, and not just as a placebo effect. I don't understand how there can be such strict advertising standards over relatively inconsequential things like face creams and shampoos but when it comes to the claims made for alternative therapies there doesn't seem to be an equivalent.

I understand that this is a very emotive issue particularly when we are talking about childbirth and other issues/illnesses that conventional medicine doesn't seem to have the answer for. I think a lot of the perceived judgmentalism (is that a word?!) from some of the posts is actually borne out of exasperation, and the feeling that people are entitled to have more than anecdotal evidence to support the treatments they are taking.

Binsky, I think the difference is that makers of homeopathic rememdies are not allowed to make claims on the product that it will cure or heal an ailment. They aren't allowed to advertise to this effect either.

People can read about homeopathy in books and learn about what specific remedies can be used for. It is up to them if they then go on to buy those remedies.

It's the same for essential oils and vitamins and some herbal remedies.