Homeopath being sued over death of Australian cancer victim

[Snorbs]

Penelope Dingle died in 2005 following her cancer diagnosis in 2003. At the time of the diagnosis doctors urged her to embark on a conventional treatment programme. Instead, she chose to continue following a homeopathic treatment programme put together by Francine Scrayen. The cancer progressed and by the time Mrs Dingle realised that Scrayen's treatment was not working, she was seriously ill and her prognosis had worsened considerably.

Mrs Dingle's sister is suing Francine Scrayen over her lack of care.

Particularly heart-breaking, and damning, is the letter written by Penelope Dingle to Francine Scrayen before she died and asking Scrayen for an explanation of why she so badly failed to offer good advice.

I saw this and it is really dreadful. How Ms Scrayen can live with herself now is beyond me. Did you see that she is threatening to sue a blogger for what he has written about her (entirely reasonably in my opinion)?

For anyone who thinks that homeopathy is harmless, and if it helps people feel better then it must be a good thing, this is why it is so dangerous. When people like Francine Scrayen who actually believe in it advise people to follow their treatments and not listen to actual medical advice, huge damage can be done.

It is a sad sad thing. However, Miss Dingle's sister chose to not accept the doctars advice to follow conventional treatment. This was her right. While it is awful that this lady has lost her sister, she chose to use the treatment offered by the homeopath over the treatment offered by an experienced medical doctor. Francine Scrayen may well have been irresponsible, but as a patient with mental capacity, you make a choice to follow advised treatment or not - she chose alternative therapies, which have no proven use, and they sadly (although perhaps inevitably) did not work for her. Perhaps the homeopath should have advised her to follow the medical treatment, and used the homeopathy as a complementary therapy rather than alternative. Never the less, the patient makes the decision to accept or refuse any treatment - it is never forced upon someone.

Nothing will take away the family's grief, so I am guessing that Miss Dingle is doing this to help her feel like she is "doing something" as nothing will bring her sister back.

the problem iliketea is that Scrayen manipulated Ms Dingle into following her "treatment regime" by telling her she would cure her and also telling her that she couldnt have conventional treatement at the same time as the -onion- -water- homeopathic treatment thereby limiting her options dramatically. I beleive she told her that if she had conventional treatment it would destroy the homeopathic cure.

When faced with a terminal diagnosis like that a promise of a cure is a very powerful thing. None of the conventional treatment providers offered such a guarentees to Ms Dingle and for good reason, there are no guarentees and to offer one to someone in such a vulnerable position is professionally indefensible and morally outrageous.

Obviously Penelope Dingle made her choice to follow a homeopathic treatment, and therefore had to live with the consequences of that choice, but that does not absolve Francine Scrayen from blame. She repeatedly advised Penelope to ignore advice from her doctors and to refuse pain relief and surgery. As a homeopathic practitioner she was in a position of trust, which she abused, and it is right that she faces the consequences of this. I am suprised that criminal charges have not already been brought against her.

I think the action that Mrs Dingle's sister is taking is misguided although I'm not sure what the legal situation is in Aus for this kind of thing. It may be entirely par for the course over there.

But I think the letter Mrs Dingle wrote was very telling if utterly tragic and difficult to read. Francine Scrayen offered her the hope of being able to conceive while encouraging her to ignore the symptoms of her growing cancer. Scrayen repeatedly told her to ignore proper medical advice leaving Mrs Dingle in agony and very close to death.

Was Penelope Dingle misguided? Undoubtedly yes. But I do think Francine Scrayen badly failed in her duty to offer good advice or to at least hold her hands up and say "Penelope, this is getting a lot more serious than I can handle, you need to go to hospital." But she didn't.

Both Penelope Dingle and Francine Scrayen are to blame - sadly Mrs Dingle has paid for her mistake with her life (although when doctors screw up they always use the get-out clause that 'it's impossible to prove that the patient wouldn't have died anyway' - a phrase that features in every single case of alleged medical negligence).

Homeopathy is a valid choice but anyone who thinks it can cure cancer is barking and any homeopath who claims it can is a misguided fool, or a liar. I have no idea about the regulatory or legal system in Australia but Scrayen should certainly be prevented from 'treating' anyone ever again.

Sadly people who have serious illnesses are prey for quacks selling unproven treatments. There was a phase of snake oil salesmen charging MS patients thousands of pounds for alleged 'stem cell therapy' a few years back, in Germany IIRC. Some of the patients were convinced it had helped, and outraged if anyone tried to expose the con.

I know it is serious but every time I hear homeopathy I think:

Well said Edam.
My treatment for cancer does offer some complimentary medicine to help with stress but it is exAcfly that (and homeopathy isn't one of the treatments suggested).

Oh and while we are on daft links here is another mnhubbie [[

homeopath a and e]]

That is a good one. Not seen that before. I just hope water doesn't have memory. Think of all the urine it has been.

"Homeopathy is a valid choice" for what?

From the news article it appears her husband also put pressure on her to avoid conventional treatment:

"Penelope Dingle's sister is suing the homeopath who persuaded the cancer victim to ignore conventional treatment in favour of fighting the deadly disease with alternative medicine. The case made national headlines in 2010 when State Coroner Alastair Hope held an inquest into Mrs Dingle's death, finding that her husband, Peter Dingle, and homeopath Francine Scrayen had played important roles in the decision."

"He said Dr Dingle, who had no formal medical qualification, was also actively involved in isolating his wife from the outside inter- ferences of those recommending conventional medicine. The deceased could not have continued on the path of stand-alone homeopathic treatment for as long as she did without his involvement," Mr Hope said. Mr Hope said that while Dr Dingle had been an active participant in his wife's decision-making "ultimately the decisions were those of the deceased. The deceased paid a terrible price for poor decision-making."

unfortunately i have some personal experience of this type of treatment.
these practioners can be very manipulative - the one i used had several of her patients ring me to testify to the success of her treatment.
i was only shocked into stopping treatment when one day she let slip that she treated people with cancer and that she had 'lost one'.absolutely horrifying that she took lots of money from these poor people.

Homeopathy's a valid choice for anyone who wants to try it, as long as the homeopath isn't pretending they can cure cancer.

What a very distressing letter

Fascinating Russian documentary about water and thoughts being imprinted in water and water retaining its memory. Not homeopathy, but holy water etc.

What is acceptable for homeopaths to pretend to cure?

An excess of cash?

That is horrific, that poor woman.

Ms Scrayen took advantage of Ms Dingle's fears, desperation and extreme vulnerability. She used these weaknesses to manipulate her. That is inexcusable. Yes, Ms Dingle made her own decisions, and she takes ownership of this at the end of the letter. But IMO Ms Scrayen should be held accountable by law for the way she abused Ms Dingle's trust, and I hope that she is.

If you believe that placebo is a valid choice as medical treatment, then yes, homeopathy is a valid choice, because it is a placebo treatment. But it should NEVER be suggested, by homeopaths or lay people, that it can cure diseases as serious as cancer.

The placebo effect is well documented for certain things. Doctors can't ethically prescribe a placebo, but homeopaths can. If it's something that might respond to a placebo then homeopathy is a valid choice (for example, pain relief, energy increase, anxiolytics) - but to claim it can cure serious illness is outrageous.

Although, in France doctors can and do prescribe homeopathy. I was a bit stunned when we took DS to see one with an ear infection and they prescribed homeopathy. Fortunately they also prescribed anti-Bs and neurofen.

I'm being the devil's advocate here. Why do we not allow people to choose to cure cancer with homepathy and refuse conventional treatment? If you extend this, should we refuse the choice we as parents get to refuse immunisation of our children? You might say cancer is more serious than a chance to develop measles. But cancer doesn't affect others through your free choice. The success rate of preventing illness isn't 100% via immunisation. By not immunising your children, eg against rubella, your children might inadvertantly passed rubella to an immunised but not protected pregnant woman. And this woman will have a very high chance to give birth to a baby with serious birth defect.

I do think it's wrong that homeopath are allowed to say they cure diseases that they can't. And that we hold our medical professional to a higher standard of proof above alternative medicine and the food industry (see all the super food). But that's a different issue entirely.

As I remember it, you're not allowed to claim anything can cure cancer. It's one of those laws. Certainly any homoeopath who makes that claim is well outside of their professional jurisdiction and ethics and as such, it's probably a good idea that she is being sued.

Complementary medicine should be used as that - complementary, not "alternative".

Steve Jobs died partly because he relied on alternative medicine until his cancer was so advanced to be terminal, IIRC (he was lucky enough to have pancreatic cancer that was caught at the point it was still operable, which is very unusual, but by the time he gave up on alternative medicine that window of opportunity was gone).