Homeopathy & Patient Choice: A rod for the PCTs backs?

Some brief thoughts on the department of health’s response to the homeopathy evidence check.

The predictably “hands-off” response [PDF] to the NHS using and funding homeopathy by the current administration potentially falls into a couple of obvious traps.

Whilst it ducks the thorny questions, in attempting to sate both sides of the arguments it has fallen between two stools.

Pro-homeopathy types will perhaps not be enamoured with the fact that the “evidence base” for homeopathy gets very short shrift, with homeopathy rightly being labeled as implausible and entirely placebo-based:

the majority of independent scientists consider the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy to be weak or absent, and that there is currently no plausible scientific mechanism for homeopathy.

Those with an anti-homeopathy viewpoint maybe annoyed that the government ducked the decision on nhs funding, and palmed it off to the PCTs, citing patient choice.

the overriding reason for NHS provision is that homeopathy is available to provide patient choice.

This is a curious and illogical decision to make, and it has the distinct whiff of some “Duchy original” tinkering. I suspect that the department of health will shortly be inundated with FOI requests to determine if this was the case.

By ignoring the evidence base and going with “patient choice” the government opens the PCTs to all sorts of (perhaps) spurious requests.

Should cancer patients denied expensive therapies on basis of cost re-request them, citing their patient choice as a major and important factor? Should those wishing plastic or cosmetic surgery be allowed to get it on the NHS, as it is their choice? Should I get a case of Innis and Gunn oak-aged beer each month, as I find it relaxes me after a hard day’s work? At the tax payers expense?

Of course not – the NHS cannot and should not fund everything. But the first place cuts should have been made is on faddy magic pills that do not work (and, I concede, my beer…).

Should those wishing a quick and painless “assisted suicide” get it from the NHS, as it is their choice? Should a rather vocal minority with royal approval get worthless sugar pills with no medicinal value whatsoever?

The DoH response clearly states it does not wish to get involved in ethical discussions –

We note also that it is not for the Department of Health to comment on the ethics of the use of a particular treatment in a particular setting.

– yet it continues to hold a tough ethical & moral stance on the euthanasia issue.

To me, this response looks awfully like an attempt to fudge a decision which allows continued funding of homeopathy, despite overwhelming evidence that it does not work and is a pointless waste of NHS funds (although, as has been pointed out, there are other targets within the NHS budget in need of trimming).

When patients suffer due to lack of NHS funding, shouldn’t every opportunity be taken to trim away waste?

5 Responses to Homeopathy & Patient Choice: A rod for the PCTs backs?

  1. Kash says:

    Citing patient choice is a cop out and an idiotic thing to say.

    What happens if someone wants Psychic surgery because they are scared of going under the knife?

    Or perhaps therapeutic touch therapy?

  2. draust says:

    Of course, when PCTs are vaporized this will then pass to (presumably) Gps, or perhaps more accurately to fund-holding GP practices or co-ops.

    Whether that will mean more or less Magic Beans – sorry Water – than having the PCTs acting as the gatekeeper I don’t know.

  3. xtaldave says:

    Just in case anyone is even remotely interested, an FOIA request has been submitted to the Department of Health regarding any potential “Duchy Original” tinkering… the deadline for a response from the DoH is 16/17 August 2010.

  4. Gerhardt says:

    NHS Tayside is part of NHS Scotland, which is completely devolved. Prince Charles has nothing to do with it, or indeed Nicola Surgeon.

    But please; don’t let me stop your ignorant wafflings.

    • xtaldave says:

      Hi Gerhardt.

      I’m not entirely sure what you’ve done here, but it would seem that you have conflated this post, regarding the DoH response to the S&TC evidence check, in which I mention Prince Charles, with this one (https://xtaldave.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/in-which-i-apply-for-a-job-as-a-homeopath/) in which I mention NHS Tayside. But not Prince Charles.

      I don’t think I have ever mentioned Nicola Surgeon. (Sturgeon?)

      I had always intended the two posts to be different posts, as indicated by the fact that they are different posts. Published on different dates. On different URLs.

      But still, don’t let me stop your utterly bizarre and irrelevant waffling 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: