RE: Homeopathy

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:26:00 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"] Owner sues homeopathic vet for negligence, based on incorrect treatment, wasted fees, time, stress etc. [/quote][quote user="Iain Richards"]So could a defence be mounted? [/quote]

The owner engaged a homeopathic veterinary surgeon so must have wanted homeopathy and got homeopathy. If the homeopathic treatment given was correct homeopathy, there was no negligence, just a patient that didn't respond to the normal correct treatment. I don't know about you people, but over the years I've had patients that didn't respond to the correct treatment; once or twice that I can recall, owners have alleged negligence (although none have sued me).

(Of course if the owner did not know that the first veterinary surgeon was a homeopath and did not appreciate that homeopathy was not the conventional treatment, that would be a different matter.)

[quote user="Iain Richards"]So could a client wanting homoeopathy have a legitimate complaint to RCVS if their normal vet doesn’t consider a homeopathic referral.[/quote]

A confusing question. Do you mean the client wanted homeopathy and requested it, but the veterinary surgeon advised against it? There's no case to answer, because the veterinary surgeon is acting correctly professionally. (Equally, if the veterinary surgeon reckons it up and considers that homeopathy can do no harm to the case, and organises the referral, he is acting professionally.) Or do you mean that the client had a hankering for homeopathy but did not tell the veterinary surgeon, but was miffed that the veterinary surgeon did not consider homeopathy? Moreover, though the veterinary surgeon did not recommend referral for homeopathy, nothing is preventing the client arranging referral or supercession themselves. So no case to answer, but this does not logically lead to the conclusion "then the stated RCVS view that the profession should provide homeopathy is wrong."

This forum being what it is, I suppose I had better point out once again that personally I consider homeopathy to be bunkum.

RE: Homeopathy

Bob Russell — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:38:10 GMT

There seems to be a massive 'fudge' by the RCVS and certain others.

A 'diagnosis' can only be made by a qualified veterinary surgeon based on clinical knowledge and examination. That bit is fine, not many are going to argue that point too much.

When a qualified veterinary surgeon makes a diagnosis but then decides to treat with mumbo jumbo (eg waving magic crystals over the tip of a pets tail) then we head into belief rather than knowledge.

I accept knowledge may incomplete, patchy and sometimes just wrong but where there is absolutely no semblance of science we enter the realms of the faith healer.

Homeopathic 'remedies' are based on dilutions to the point that only a memory remains. Clearly the medication will contain so many memories of things that are no longer there plus traces of contaminants that genuinely are there that any therapeutic value makes no sense at all.

A homoeopath is likely to face a court case supported by loads of similar minded supporters, all with some sort of genuine qualification and/or grand sounding homoeopathic qualifications.

The court is likely to be headed by a non-medical Magistrate/Judge and/or Jury, none of whom are likely to be able to make a clinical decision.

Bring on Prince Charles and the court may well arrive at a pretty unscientific conclusion.

The profession should be able to provide a balanced argument between science, medical understanding and mumbo jumbo. Accept the limitations of what we do but be open about the claptrap and charlatans!