By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Homeopathy is useless and unethical

Kasz216 on 07 March 2010
tombi123 said:
Kasz216 said:

In otherwords... it would be like forcing everybody to pay a tax to provide pork for everbody to eat.

Yet there are plenty of people either by religion, health or just taste reasons who don't want to eat pork.

You are taking away their ability to buy food, because your forcing them to buy food they can't or won't eat.

 

And at the moment the government is taking away the ability for the majority to buy meat because they are forcing them to buy tofu for the minority.


How? Nobody is being forced to buy tofu. The people who want tofu are buying Tofu with their own money that would of previously went to the taxes to buy pork. It's doing nothing but protecting the right for someone to choose in a life or death situation. If enough people are opting out for Tofu, or homeopathic medicine that it's a giant blow to NHS/pork funding it's pretty obvious Nhs/pork has some huge problems.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 March 2010

Heck, think about it this way. Say you pay around 200 grand over your life to NHS.

Are in perfect health... NEVER use NHS... then find out the 50,000 treatment you want isn't covered by NHS.

Furthermore you don't have 50,000 for your treatment.

Well what the hell? You can't pay for the treatment you want... yet could have had you not been taxed for something you never used, and possibly never even WANTED to use.

If this is the case, you should clearly be reimbursed the 50,000 grand for an operation or procedure they wouldn't normally cover.



highwaystar101 on 07 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
Heck, think about it this way. Say you pay around 200 grand over your life to NHS.

Are in perfect health... NEVER use NHS... then find out the 50,000 treatment you want isn't covered by NHS.

Furthermore you don't have 50,000 for your treatment.

Well what the hell? You can't pay for the treatment you want... yet could have had you not been taxed for something you never used, and possibly never even WANTED to use.

If this is the case, you should clearly be reimbursed the 50,000 grand for an operation or procedure they wouldn't normally cover.

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 



SciFiBoy on 07 March 2010

I agree fully with the thread title and OP



Kasz216 on 07 March 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
Heck, think about it this way. Say you pay around 200 grand over your life to NHS.

Are in perfect health... NEVER use NHS... then find out the 50,000 treatment you want isn't covered by NHS.

Furthermore you don't have 50,000 for your treatment.

Well what the hell? You can't pay for the treatment you want... yet could have had you not been taxed for something you never used, and possibly never even WANTED to use.

If this is the case, you should clearly be reimbursed the 50,000 grand for an operation or procedure they wouldn't normally cover.

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 


It's the doctors responsiblity to tell them what's more effetive. However it's NEVER EVER a doctors job to overrule a patient. A doctor is simply to present the options, and the various risks and rewards he sees... however it's ALWAYS the patients choice. ALWAYS. Anything else would just be unethical... ask any doctor. People should be able to have any treatment they wish.

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 07 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 

It's the doctors responsiblity to tell them what's more effetive. However it's NEVER EVER a doctors job to overrule a patient. A doctor is simply to present the options, and the various risks and rewards he sees... however it's ALWAYS the patients choice. ALWAYS. Anything else would just be unethical... ask any doctor. People should be able to have any treatment they wish.

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.



SamuelRSmith on 07 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
Heck, think about it this way. Say you pay around 200 grand over your life to NHS.

Are in perfect health... NEVER use NHS... then find out the 50,000 treatment you want isn't covered by NHS.

Furthermore you don't have 50,000 for your treatment.

Well what the hell? You can't pay for the treatment you want... yet could have had you not been taxed for something you never used, and possibly never even WANTED to use.

If this is the case, you should clearly be reimbursed the 50,000 grand for an operation or procedure they wouldn't normally cover.

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 

It's the doctors responsiblity to tell them what's more effetive. However it's NEVER EVER a doctors job to overrule a patient. A doctor is simply to present the options, and the various risks and rewards he sees... however it's ALWAYS the patients choice. ALWAYS. Anything else would just be unethical... ask any doctor. People should be able to have any treatment they wish.

This is diverting from the topic a bit, but is what you just said necessarily the case? Sure, a patient can choose between having health care, or refusing all treatment, but, outside of that treatment is limited to what the Government/Trust/Insurance company is willing to pay for, unless the patient is in the rare and fortunate position of being able to afford their own healthcare (or, they live in Singapore )



HappySqurriel on 07 March 2010
tombi123 said:
HappySqurriel said:
tombi123 said:
HappySqurriel said:

While I don’t really support homeopathic medicine, I would encourage people to be careful about openly mocking homeopathic medicine being that only very recently were people better off after seeking medical treatment; and that there are several areas of conventional medical care (psychiatry and back surgery come to mind) that are of very questionable value.

What do you mean by the bolded?

It is fairly widely accepted that sometime in the past 100 years (or so) we passed a point where the medical treatment you received from a doctor was more likely to do good than harm. At the turn of the last century practices like bloodletting and the use of leeches had finally effectively died out, and we were really starting to see the widespread use of more modern techniques, but the tools, techniques and medicines were still very primitive which limited the effectiveness. Consider (for a moment) that blood transfusions didn't become safe (ish) in humans until 1901 when human blood types were discovered, and a blood transfusion opened people up to the possibility of getting communicable blood borne diseases until the 1980s.

Yeah in the 19th and early 20th century it was safer to get treated at a homeopathic hospital than a normal hospital. Because homeopathic medicine doesn't do you any harm (its just a sugar pill) where as bloodletting and other practices of the time did do you a lot of harm. That isn't the case any more though and there is no evidence to suggest homeopathy works better than a normal placebo.

 

I wasn't relating it to homeopathic medicine at all ... Just saying that the history of modern medicine (and some ares within modern medicine today) is not so great that you can freely mock people who believe in homeopathy.



Personally, I'm not a supporter of homeopathic medicine, but I am open to the possibility that some of the techniques might have some benefit in certain situations; and we need to study these techniques and their effects to determine whether they have value.



Kasz216 on 07 March 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 

It's the doctors responsiblity to tell them what's more effetive. However it's NEVER EVER a doctors job to overrule a patient. A doctor is simply to present the options, and the various risks and rewards he sees... however it's ALWAYS the patients choice. ALWAYS. Anything else would just be unethical... ask any doctor. People should be able to have any treatment they wish.

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.



Kasz216 on 07 March 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
Heck, think about it this way. Say you pay around 200 grand over your life to NHS.

Are in perfect health... NEVER use NHS... then find out the 50,000 treatment you want isn't covered by NHS.

Furthermore you don't have 50,000 for your treatment.

Well what the hell? You can't pay for the treatment you want... yet could have had you not been taxed for something you never used, and possibly never even WANTED to use.

If this is the case, you should clearly be reimbursed the 50,000 grand for an operation or procedure they wouldn't normally cover.

Doctors know much more about medicine than your average Joe, surely it is their responsibility to tell patients their way is going to be more effective. Or just overrule their decision all together if it endangers their life unnecessarily.

Let's say my preferred treatment for a cancerous tumour was to drink a tea made from exotic flowers, but the doctors know that I should have surgery to remove the tumour as my method would not be effective and would lead to my eventual death.

The treatment I want is not the right treatment, and this is what it boils down to.

Whether my preferred treatment is £50,000 or £5, the doctor should only attempt to provide the treatment that works... and homeopathy is not a treatment that works.

 

It's the doctors responsiblity to tell them what's more effetive. However it's NEVER EVER a doctors job to overrule a patient. A doctor is simply to present the options, and the various risks and rewards he sees... however it's ALWAYS the patients choice. ALWAYS. Anything else would just be unethical... ask any doctor. People should be able to have any treatment they wish.

This is diverting from the topic a bit, but is what you just said necessarily the case? Sure, a patient can choose between having health care, or refusing all treatment, but, outside of that treatment is limited to what the Government/Trust/Insurance company is willing to pay for, unless the patient is in the rare and fortunate position of being able to afford their own healthcare (or, they live in Singapore )

The difference between an insurance company and goverment healthcare being... if you don't agree with the insurance companies polcies you can opt out of paying into it.