Society of Homeopaths breach code of ethics on website – still
Posted by gimpy on November 13, 2009
Professor Edzard Ernst has recently written a short article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice detailing the failure of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) to apply their own code of ethics to their website. A BMJ summary of the article contains an interview with Professor Ernst as well as providing a brief overview:
[A] review of some members’ websites showed a series of violations of the code that led Professor Ernst to scrutinise the society’s own website.
Despite there being no good clinical evidence to substantiate such claims, says Professor Ernst, the society’s website carried statements claiming that homoeopathy can help with various symptoms and illnesses, including fever, sore throat, toothache, arthritis, eczema, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, chicken pox, erectile dysfunction, and prostate problems.
“In my view, they [the statements] do ‘expressly or implicitly’ claim ‘to cure named diseases,’” writes Professor Ernst. “If this is so, they violate the SoH’s [Society of Homeopath’s] own Code of Ethics.”
He concludes, “If the SoH wants its members to behave ethically it should evaluate its own website carefully and deliberate whether it is responsible for a professional organisation to make health claims which are not supported by the current best evidence.”
The SoH response is also represented:
Paula Ross, the society’s chief executive, said she was grateful to Professor Ernst for highlighting his concerns and that the society would be investigating the concerns and making amendments “where appropriate.”
Long term readers of this blog may recall that I did infact make most of the points Professor Ernst has in October 2007, with the conclusion
[If] you keep banging on about your Code of Ethics and how that provides a reason to take homeopathy seriously then you should make sure that your website, your interface with the public, is absolutely rigorous in its adherence to your Code of Ethics. If you didn’t do that then people might begin to think that you don’t actually care about enforcing your Code of Ethics and your attempts to silence criticism through legal bullying wasn’t just a mistake but an active attempt to avoid responsibility.
It is my understanding that the SoH were informed of the contents of my blog shortly after I published it, over two years ago. I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the SoH’s competence, honesty and ethics.
Neil said
See http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/
“Scientifically it can not yet be explained precisely how it works, but new theories in quantum physics are going some way towards shedding light on the process.”
ROTFL
Wendy Pearman said
ROTFL????
fictionalvicky said
ROTFL = Rolling On The Floor Laughing
nobby said
i am guessing this comes at a bad time for them with the upcoming inquiry.
warhelmet said
Well, there are plenty of homeopaths who claim to be able to cure named diseases. Including cancer and venereal disease. And the SoH seems to do nothing, but not as little nothing as the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths or the Homeopathic Medical Association.
Budicius said
While we are on the subject of Physics here is a little somethin’ somethin’-
http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10
Any thoughts?
JamesM said
That’s biochemistry, not physics. If you had a grasp of either, you’d know that this is irrelevant to homeopathy – they did experiments with solutions containing actual molecules.
JamesM said
Oops. I take that back, with many humble apologies. I only looked at half the figures in my rush.
They do go beyond ‘n=10′ (1×10-20) in some experiments, but my crude eye-ball test is struggling to see statistical significance, and they didn’t do any analysis at all. I’d like to see something real to explain.
warhelmet said
How about, the Society of Homeopaths encourage the public to invite members of the SoH to break the law?
See – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20020253.htm#45 vs http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/pregnancy-and-childbirth.aspx, especially -
Doesn’t get any bare faced than that.
nymph said
It’s not illegal to be at a birth if you are not a midwife; it is illegal to take on the professional duties of a midwife. “Attend” means taking on the role of a midwife, i.e. giving medical care.
This text below is taken from: http://www.aims.org.uk/homebirthUpdated.htm
Since so many doctors and midwives misquote this Order you might like to know what it really says in section 16:
1. A person other than a registered midwife or a registered medical practitioner shall not attend a woman in childbirth.
2. Subsection (1) does not apply -
1. where the attention is given in a case of sudden or urgent necessity; or
2. in the case of a person who, while undergoing training with a view to becoming a medical practitioner or to becoming a midwife, attends a woman in childbirth as part of a course of practical instruction in midwifery recognised by the General Medical Council or one of the National Boards.
A person who contravenes paragraph (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (£5,000 to you and me)
The Order is intended to prevent people pretending that they have midwifery qualifications when they do not. It is not designed to prosecute those who are present at a home birth when a woman decides that she is not going to call a midwife or a doctor.
As a result of this confusion AIMS lobbied the Department of Health asking for clarification. In September 2002 Jacqui Smith MP, the Minister of State at the Department of Health wrote to Julia Drown MP as follows:
‘Attending a woman in childbirth, as opposed to general support given by partners and relatives, has been an offence against the protected function of midwifery since the Midwives Act 1902 and the fines are set at a level to reflect the seriousness of the offence. By ‘attend’ we mean, ‘assume responsibility for care’ and this is not intended to outlaw husbands, partners and relatives whose presence and support during childbirth are extremely important’.
warhelmet said
Nymph – it’s Article 45 of the Order you’ve quoted. I’m very familiar with what the Order says and its implications. Fraudulent representation as a midwife is covered Article 44.
Article 45 makes it a criminal offence for anyone other than a doctor or a midwife to “attend” childbirth – as in do the midwifery bit and other medical care – (with the provisos in 1 & 2). This means that the situation the SoH describe in their leaflet is illegal. Some homeopaths list “birth attendance” amongst their services.
The most generous interpretation is the SoH and homeopaths are ignorant of the law. If so, the SoH is negligent in not protecting the public and its members.
ez said
You mean, even the husband is not allowed to be there?
nymph said
I’m sure that it’s merely a misuse of language. Birth support would be a better way of saying that they would be at the birth in a non-medical capacity.
Mojo said
“Birth support would be a better way of saying that they would be at the birth in a non-medical capacity.”
While I would be prepared to accept that a homoeopath could be said to be present “in a non-medical capacity”, I doubt that a homoeopath attending a birth in their capacity as a homoeopath would fall within “general support given by partners and relatives”.
warhelmet said
Why do the Society of Homeopaths get the language wrong when other CAM trade associations don’t? Were the lawyers they consulted during the last revision of their Code of Ethics and Practice worse than those used by other trade associations? I’m not sure that it as simple as using the wrong word. There is more going on here.
As soon as a homeopathic “birth supporter” whips out a remedy, they are potentially in trouble.
Guensekitte said
Lots of folks blog about this subject but you wrote down some true words.