NHS support for homeopathy evaporates

According to a study by Pulse, homeopathy is the highest profile victim of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) cost effective approach to NHS resources. According to Pulse only 37% of NHS PCTs still have contracts for homeopathic services while a quarter have stopped or reduced funding over the past two years. Pulse suggest that this is a result of the open letter written in 2006 calling for the abandonment of homeopathy, and other alternative therapies, on the grounds of no evidence of efficacy.

Pulse claim that

Homeopathic clinics in the UK are in crisis. Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital in Kent has announced it will close and the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital is fighting for survival after eight trusts cancelled contracts over the past year, and a further six reduced referrals. Referrals to the hospital are down 20% in a year.

The withdrawal of funding for homeopathy was justified by Prof. Edzard Ernst, a former homeopath,as it is no more than a placebo.

There can be no cost-effectiveness without effectiveness

These sentiments were echoed by Professor Michael Baum, one of the signatories of the 2006 letter, in a quote on the BBC website

The NHS should be putting its money into evidence-based medicine, so this is a good start, but while people are starting to realise they are being conned by the whole complementary medicine establishment, it will be a long time before we see the back of it.

Now this statement is provocative and perhaps a little unfair on homeopaths as I believe the vast majority of them, medically qualified or otherwise, are sincere. I think it is a case that they have fooled themselves into thinking homeopathy works better than a placebo despite ample evidence to the contrary. However, the arguments that homeopaths are involved in a con is given strength by the reaction of the Faculty of Homeopaths (FoH) and Peter Fisher, director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, to the withdrawal of funds for homeopathy. Peter Fisher seems to have abandoned any argument using evidence and relies instead on a fallacious appeal to public and political support followed by an entirely irrelevant list of other therapies

For one, there’s a lot of public and political support,” said Dr Peter Fisher, adding that in any event homoeopathy comprised only 40% on the services on offer, which included nutritional medicine and relaxation techniques.

The FoH likewise don’t cite any scientific evidence and instead opt for patient satisfaction which is no marker for successful treatment.

The homoeopathic hospitals provide a specialist service that has helped hundreds of thousands of NHS patients over the last 60 years and has extremely high levels of patient satisfaction.

They are particularly well equipped to treat patients whose complex chronic health problems have not been effectively treated by conventional medicine.

The last sentence is particularly intriguing as it is reminiscent of the the God of the gaps argument used by some theists. Now leaving aside the fact that homeopathy has not been shown to successfully treat any non-self limiting health problem this argument leads inexorably to the evaporation of homeopathy as a treatment option as science and modern medicine increase the number of diseases treatable by conventional methods. Such an argument is also wide open to claims that homeopathy is merely a placebo in which case it is easy to argue that money should be spent on effective methods of palliative care for those with incurable conditions.

The Pulse article concludes with a very revealing comment from Tim Robinson, a GP with a homeopathic service,

patients denied homeopathic treatments on the NHS might take risks by consulting non-medical practitioners. ‘They will have to pay someone and go to a non-doctor and there are potential risks with that,’ he said.

One wonders how much distrust there is between supporters of homeopathy in the medical profession and non-medically qualified practitioners? This distrust is justified given that non-medically qualified homeopaths are claiming to treat and cure AIDS, cancer, malaria, ADHD and autism amongst other diseases. I’ve speculated before about the awkward situation homeopathy finds itself in, medically qualified practitioners rely on the support of non-medically qualified homeopaths but seem to regard some of their actions and ideas as profoundly dangerous while the non-medically qualified homeopaths see homeopathy as an alternative to conventional medicine and many believe that all drugs are dangerous and harmful. It is hard to see how this terrible dichotomy can be resolved and I suspect it will ultimately result in the disintegration of homeopathy.