Survey shows pseudoscience in NHS cancer services

Sadly not surprised about this, just glad it is not a higher figure. With my mother’s cancer treatments over the last decade I’ve seen quite a few non-medical, non-evidence based “treatments” being offered and advertised within a cancer treatment unit.

I see they have quotes from my mother’s primary treatment centre:

“The treatment combines classic acupressure points with reflex points of the spine, shoulders and legs. In addition, reflexology theory suggests that by working the hands it helps the feet and conversely working the feet may help the hands.”

“Emotional freedom technique is an evidence-based mind-body therapy during which cortisol levels reduce and the brain’s emotional centre becomes less active.”

“Head massage is a treatment that focuses on massaging acupressure points along the head, neck and shoulders...”

“There is no need to remove any clothing as reiki will pass through anything, even plaster casts. The therapist is a channel which the energy is drawn through by the need or imbalance in the individual.”
​

I’m against of course them claiming that there is any medical benefit to be gained from these types of treatments but I’m not against cancer treatments specially for palliative care including “stuff that feels nice”, and even less objection if the “stuff that feels nice” is funded by charities. So fine them offering head massages because they feel nice, but not fine them offering head massages that will realign chakras.
 
Elaedith said:
Pseudoscience in Cancer Services; a survey of National Health Service Trusts in England

A new paper (preprint) reports 13.6% of NHS England trusts contact through FOI requests were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices including reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology to cancer patients.
Click to expand...

It is of note that the trusts were contacted because they were pre screened as possibly providing alternative therapies. This should not be interpreted as being representative of the whole NHS. At best this is an upper limit. I

t should also be noted that the provision of the service is not the same as funding the service, such services are often funded by external grants.
 
This has cropped up a few times over on Edzard Ernst's blog (with Les contributing to discussion).

As Planigale points out, many, if not all, instances of these things are at least in part funded by some external body with an axe to grind. However, that would still lead to an NHS cost: provision of buildings and assocoated costs; removal of staff from other duties; employer on-costs; and the rest.

It is still not good that the NHS is associated with these things and NICE guidelines do not support them. Certain clinical professions might need to be careful, as I read the nursing code of conduct as not allowing involvement in these activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom