Traditional chinese remedy

to.by

Scholar
T
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
106
Herbal remedies are often said to have no bad or dangerous side effects. Well, a norwegian woman suffered complete kidney failure and is now awaiting kidney transplantation. This happened after she took a traditional chinese remedy containing "aristolachia". (That is what it is called in the Norwegian newspaper). This is a herb or substance that is extremely toxic to kidneys and it is carcinogenic to boot.
 
I guess I'll just put in a couple of points, for those that, unlike me (and CFLarsen), can't read Norwegian:

*The medicine in question was sold by a Chinese herbalist. It was supposed to help against a liver disease he claimed the woman was having.
*The woman herself spent about 850 dollars a month on herbal stuff and acupuncture.
* All the aristolochia-containing plants are regarded as highly toxic, and is therefore illegal to sell in Norway without prescription. THe herbalist was therefore breaking the law.
* On the package, there were only Chinese letters put on, making it impossible for the average Norwegian to check what it actually contained. Which is another law the herbalist broke, since everything that's sold to be taken internally requires an ingredient list in Norwegian.
*The newspaper has tried to contact the herbalist, but he has so far been unavailable.

Guess that makes the main points in addition to the opening post. If someone Scandinavian means I've missed important detail to the story, feel free to add.
 
I cannot possibly imagine that between that and the press this case is getting (getting fairly big coverage in the national press here), there should be a reason for the herbalist going underground. ;)
 
Pretty much the same thing happened in England a couple of years ago, see the BBC news report on the case. As far as I remember, the herbalist was acquitted on the grounds that she had been assured by her supplier that the goods being supplied did not contain aristolochia, and it was reasonable of her to have accepted that assurance.

Talk about double standards!

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Pretty much the same thing happened in England a couple of years ago, see the BBC news report on the case. As far as I remember, the herbalist was acquitted on the grounds that she had been assured by her supplier that the goods being supplied did not contain aristolochia, and it was reasonable of her to have accepted that assurance.

Talk about double standards!

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
This is of course a notorious case. It went before a jury which basically defied the law and acquitted. The legal position is that a contract is between customer and supplier, in this case the retailer not the wholesaler. The retailer is liable, no question. I remember discussing this with Trading Standards who were pretty hacked off about it. Even more importantly, I don't believe the wholesaler was prosecuted at all.
 
Asolepius said:
This is of course a notorious case. It went before a jury which basically defied the law and acquitted. The legal position is that a contract is between customer and supplier, in this case the retailer not the wholesaler. The retailer is liable, no question. I remember discussing this with Trading Standards who were pretty hacked off about it. Even more importantly, I don't believe the wholesaler was prosecuted at all.
Click to expand...
This would (I think) have been a case brought under section 62 of the Medicines Act. The charge would have been that Ms. Zheng had supplied the drug "knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect" that it was illegal. Whether she had "reasonable cause to suspect" is a matter for the jury to decide, and juries do sometimes produce perverse decisions. This provides a nice little loophole, especially if the supplier isn't a member of a regulated profession; they can just hold their hands up and say "how was I supposed to know what was in it?" In a properly regulated profession, of course, they'd be kicked out pretty promptly.

This is a criminal case, so who the contract is with is irrelevant. It's just a question of whether they ought to have known what was in it.

On the other hand, supplying drugs without knowing what they are sounds like a pretty clear-cut case of negligence. Ms. Stay should have been able to sue the therapist and/or her clinic, or failing that, their supplier.
 
Here's another ASA ruling upholding a variety of complaints against a leaflet about TCM.
The leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Scientific substantiation), 50.2 (Self-diagnosis), 50.3 (Discouragement of essential treatment), 50.4 (Encouragement of excess use and implication of safety and efficacy) and 50.5 (Implication of safety and efficacy of 'natural' products).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom