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.
nobby said
i found this little nugget which may interest you warhelemt on the FIH site:
“This modular programme aims to prepare students to acquire the knowledge and skills to use a range of complementary therapies and natural remedies safely and appropriately when accompanying women during labour and birth or in the early days of motherhood”
there is alot more on there if you want to take a look
http://www.fih.org.uk/events/events_from_other_organisations/unique_maternity.html
warhelmet said
Thanks Nobby – that is really interesting.
Guensekitte said
Lots of folks blog about this subject but you wrote down some true words.
Philip said
“It is thought that this process leaves an energetic imprint of the medicinal substance throughout the body of water .”
from http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/
So a) they don’t know why they believe homoeopathy works and b) their best guess is ‘energetic imprinting’. I did physics at O and A level – I must have been off sick when they taught us ‘energetic imprinting’.
Natuurtherapeut said
It is good that they have their own code of ethics on their website, i like that as a homeopath.
Nash said
It’s just a pity that they don’t follow them
BSM said
Part of the problem is it’s “their own code of ethics” in exactly the same way as their therapy occupies their own version of reality, a fictional one.
Nash said
As a homeopath can you update us on Jeremy Sherrs progress in eradicating AIDS in Africa?
Robin said
very well indeed, in every respect.
Robin said
PS: if you skeptics were true open minded scientists and were genuinely interested in knowing whether homeopathy works or not you would attend this conference where some of the most educated homeopaths in the world will be speaking. The veterinary presentations would have you scratching your heads for sure. Cancer is one of the themes too. Harvard graduates and scientists from various disciplines talking about their many hundreds of years of combined experience of homeopathy.
rosa said
I am a homeopath and have been at the bedside when my daughter in law was giving birth to my fifth grandchild. This was my second time accompanying a birth, the first was my daughters.
In both these events I have not been the homeopaths perscribing, as I was too emotionally involved, but consulted with my own homeopath, whom I trust.
In both these events, the response to homeopathic remedies was amazing. the first has been a very difficult birth of a firstborn. Both these births ended up naturally, with the babies in excellent health and the mothers recovery was also good, with emmediate breastfeeding etc.
As to naming diseases, and their cure: The public is used to the terms used in common language, a person would ask: “Do you have something against Asthma?” Yes we do in fact, a host of remedies that include many kinds of shortness of breath in their particular picture. However these remedies actually only boost the persons own resorts (call it immune system, vital force, anima) to do the healing of the root of the problem, and not the result of it, the Asthma, while doing this healing the person gets rid of his symptoms, be it asthma or any other disease.
To make it simple we have to use this lingo so to speak, and when people who know nothing of homeopathy ask about a cure of a certain disease, us we say yes, even though we know the remedies, if properly chosen, will do the job of anhilating the source of disease, not merely deal with the symptoms.
robin said
I dont seem to get through moderation with posts that dont follow the skeptic line but heres another one . It seems homeopathy can cure cancer and doesnt need to be individualised after all:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/10/113
robin said
another succesful study in favour of homeopathy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657201
Chris said
Oooh, it worked in healthy people!
Now you just have to prove it works for people who have an illness.
Robin said
but Chris you miss the point, its impossible for water to have an effect like this according to Gimpy and co.
wakeupplease said
Good try Robin, trouble is most on here have their implausibility head on.
Au Revior, Paula Ross | The Quackometer said
[...] website broke their own code of ethics. Paula Ross relied that she would investigate. However, as gimpy blog notes, he himself had pointed out the problems two years before and nothing had been [...]
porno said
Good try Robin, trouble is most on here have their implausibility head on.