highwaystar101 said:
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.
|
To some doctors.
The treatment could be valuable to some people though just for the pece of mind they tried everything etc.
It IS overtreatment though when it's considered unethical though...
I mean, when you look at the "First wave of thereapuetic nihilism" it was infact against things like bleeding, leeches, and purging... believing they were useless. Which they in fact were... In that case therapuetic Nihlism was actually right despite being seen as unethical.
Sometimes the things widely seen as unethical is actually ethical.
