Homeopathy is useless and unethical

[Kasz216]

highwaystar101 said:

Kasz216 said:

highwaystar101 said:

I think you misunderstand what I meant by overrule. If a patient is endangering their life unnecessary by wishing to follow a trivial course of treatment, then they should be able to refuse said treatment. 

Fair enough it's limiting the patients options. However, I believe not providing the option of a trivial, ineffective and ultimately fatal treatment when a patients life from an otherwise curable disease is at stake is a perfectly ethical decision for a doctor to make. If the patient wishes to follow up a trivial treatment then that should be done at their own discretion.

That is what I meant by overrule their decision. I think you took overrule as force the patient to take the best course of treatment.

They shouldn't however.  A doctor can refuse to treat.... but that doesn't prevent the person from finding a different doctor.

 

Taken from the modern Hippocratic oath, the ethical guidelines for doctors.

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

Therapeutic nihilism includes homeopathy. The modern Hippocratic oath is pretty much the ethical foundation all doctors work too; and it clearly states that homeopathy is unethical and to be avoided. Doctors shouldn't offer homeopathy as a treatment, it's part of their ethical code.

If someone wants homeopathic treatment, by all rights they should have to find someone outside of the medical community. If they want to do that, then it's up to their own discretion.

That's not what therapeutic Nihilism means.

Theraputic Nihilism means te belief that no treatment is better then any treatment.

In fact Homepathy would actually more likely fall under overtreatment.

Since it's a treatment that does nothing.

It's about balancing overtreatment with no treatment at all. 

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=60488