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

Forums - General - Homeopathy is useless and unethical

SamuelRSmith on 07 March 2010

Ah, good point, Kasz. Mind, that would require a lot of foresight when buying health insurance (if you wasn't happy with you're current insurer's policies on heart treatment, for example, being able to find an insurer who does provide the service you wish for, for a price that you're looking for, and who is willing to take you on in your current state, would be bloody difficult).



Around the Network
Rath on 07 March 2010
HappySqurriel said:
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.

We have. They don't.

There isn't really any need for more study on homeopathic medicine, the study has been done and it has been proven complete and utter tosh.



Twistedpixel on 07 March 2010

The early smallpox vaccine was a lot more effective than homeopathic alternatives. It just depends on the alternative. Homeopathy is both ancient medicine and quackery. Sometimes ancient medicine works better than modern stuff or might fit the situation better and in that case its often re-integrated back into modern medicine. That leaves homeopathy left with what is more and more just stuff that medicine doesn't want.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

highwaystar101 on 07 March 2010
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.



Kasz216 on 08 March 2010
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



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 08 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
 

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

I know what it means. But to use the definition you gave "a disbelief in the efficacy or value of therapy, as of drugs, psychotherapy, etc", I believe that it is generally accepted in the medical community that homeopathy is not an effective treament, nor do they recognise the value of it. If a treatment is not effective or the value is not recognised, like homeopathy, then it falls under the banner of "therapeutic nihilism".

I don't see how it falls under overtreatment, sorry. Either way, it can be seen as directly conflicting with the hypocratic oath.



outlawauron on 08 March 2010
Dgc1808 said:
Yes.

[I love when I could walk into a thread and just post "Yes"]

EDIT: I failed and forgot to properly embed.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Kasz216 on 08 March 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

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

I know what it means. But to use the definition you gave "a disbelief in the efficacy or value of therapy, as of drugs, psychotherapy, etc", I believe that it is generally accepted in the medical community that homeopathy is not an effective treament, nor do they recognise the value of it. If a treatment is not effective or the value is not recognised, like homeopathy, then it falls under the banner of "therapeutic nihilism".

I don't see how it falls under overtreatment, sorry. Either way, it can be seen as directly conflicting with the hypocratic oath.

Theraputic Nihilism is the pitfall they try and avoid... themselves.  They try to avoid over treating a patient, and to believe that nothing can help a patient.

Hence why h omeopaty wouldn't fall under there.

Your using the term completly backwords in otherwords.

Not believing homeopathy does anything actually is theraputic nihilism... though a justified form.


Examples to show my point.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/4/592

http://www.dermanities.com/detail.asp?article=172

 

Theraputic Nihilism counts as overtreatment because it's a treatment which has little effect.



highwaystar101 on 09 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

I know what it means. But to use the definition you gave "a disbelief in the efficacy or value of therapy, as of drugs, psychotherapy, etc", I believe that it is generally accepted in the medical community that homeopathy is not an effective treament, nor do they recognise the value of it. If a treatment is not effective or the value is not recognised, like homeopathy, then it falls under the banner of "therapeutic nihilism".

I don't see how it falls under overtreatment, sorry. Either way, it can be seen as directly conflicting with the hypocratic oath.

Theraputic Nihilism is the pitfall they try and avoid... themselves.  They try to avoid over treating a patient, and to believe that nothing can help a patient.

Hence why homeopathy wouldn't fall under there.

Your using the term completely backwards in otherwords.

Not believing homeopathy does anything actually is theraputic nihilism... though a justified form.


Examples to show my point.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/4/592

http://www.dermanities.com/detail.asp?article=172

 

Theraputic Nihilism counts as overtreatment because it's a treatment which has little effect.

So you believe homeopathy is over treatment. Let me go back a few posts, I said homeopathy fell against the modern hippocratic oath, the ethical guidelines for doctors. The line I quoted stated that both therapeutic nihilism and over treatment were to be avoided. Whether homeopathy falls under the banner of therapeutic nihilism or over treatment, it still goes against the hippocratic oath. So which ever way you look at it, it still states homeopathy is unethical to offer, so my basic point still stands.

Anyway, I can see we're going to argue until we're blue in the face. I think maybe we should agree to disagree.

 



NKAJ on 09 March 2010

i dont even know what homeopathy is....but i heartily agree with this article :P



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"