Death by Homeopathy

I don't think there is any real benefit to putting Mom in jail. She screwed up, she lost her child. Jail would just mean more suffering. It may not even send the appropriate mesage to others tempted to try it. She may become the homeopathic martyr.

As for going after the homeopaths, doesn't it get kind of grey? If she took the advice from a book she acted on her own. If an actual person gave her the advice it might be different. The problem is that stopping treatment was probably against her doctors wishes. So she choose to ignore proffesional medical advice and act on the advice of someone she should have known wasn't qualified. It's probably also a civil matter and a blurry one at that.

Maybe some of our lawyer friends have more information.
 
That one isn't easy either. Her intentions (misguided they may be) are to help her poor dog. She isn't neglecting it. She feeds it and has concern for the animals well being, so I would have to say no, it isn't animal abuse.

It's stupid and ignorant though. Can we hold laypeople liable for their own ignorance?

I would love to see all the snake oil salesmen run out of town but I just see so much grey area.

Let's say you are receiving a traditonal medical treatment to save your life. I come along and tell you to stop that treatment and take this remedy and squeeze these crystals. You do what I said and die. Well, I never said you would get better. I just said stop the traditional treatment and try this. Which you chose to do.

I'm afraid that until homeopaths start killing more people very little will be done.
 
jimlintott said:
. Can we hold laypeople liable for their own ignorance?
Click to expand...

Well to use a clasic quote "ignorance if the law is no excuse". Why should ignorance of reality be any different?
 
geni said:
IAs to whether the homeopath is responsible how about an easy one. Is this a case of animal abuse?

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=007514;p=1#000014
Click to expand...
I just can't read these threads, I get so angry and upset. This is animal abuse.

I and my business partner regularly get involved as expert witnesses in animal cruelty cases - sometimes on the defence side, sometimes on the prosecution. Right now I'm doing one where the owner certainly fed the dog and sheltered her and "loved" her - but never took her to a vet even though she had one horrendously sore, weeping ear, was walking on three legs due to arthritis in a hip, and was dying on her feet of kidney failure. I expect a conviction. Part of the duty of care of an animal owner is to provide medical treatment when necessary.

However, we are aware of more than one case where the animal was in even worse shape, and suffering horribly, and received no more medical care than the first dog, but all concerned were "discharged without a stain on their character" because homoeopathy was plausibly presented to the Bench as legitimate veterinary medicine. I think this is scandalous.

The veterinary homoeopaths are extremely keen to have their methods accorded diplomatic immunity from the requirements of evidence-based medicine, and continually urge us to be "courteous" towards our professional colleagues by refraining from criticising their addiction to prescribing magic water. However, some of us are equally keen to out them as magical-thinking woo-woo charlatans.

They've had it their own way too long. We'll see who rusts first. :D

Rolfe.
 
BillyJoe said:
I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism?
Click to expand...

Yes, aspirin is a blood-thinning agent.
 
nick said:

This is not to defend the gullibility of the mother or the stupidity of the "homeopathic practitioner", just to say that we can't necessarily judge by the outcome. If a big stink was made of this, and it got on TV, and everyone was going "jail the mom, jail the woo-woo", and then the kid's doctor came forward and said, "well, actually, she would probably have died anyway", then all of a sudden, Mom and Dr. Homeovoodoo look almost good.
:(
Click to expand...

That only shows that the majority of people are stupid. It would be reasonable to still persucute and convicted the mom and the witch-doctor. Is murder more acceptable if you slit the throat of an unwilling, but terminal patient?
 
jimlintott said:

I'm afraid that until homeopaths start killing more people very little will be done.
Click to expand...

I am afraid so as well, as there is way too much money tied up in special interest groups. Alternative medicine is not about giving more medical choicese to people, it's about making $$$ at the cost of the ignorant. It's the money that keeps the government from requiring evidence from homeopaths and the like. It's so hard to say that, being a big capitalist, but it is true.

I think jailing the mom would do good, it would keep her dumbass off the street and stop her rantings of how "western doctors" killed her kids. Maybe not stop her rantings, but it would make it harder. She didn't "learn her lesson" at all, she grieves her kid's death, but still doesn't want to admit fault.

And, the homeopath that wrote the book should be there with her. Send John Edward and Sylvia Browne to jail as well, just because they are stupid.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, aspirin is a blood-thinning agent.
Click to expand...
Then I don't undertand your analogy (aspirin <-> homeopathy)???
But it's not really important, I'm happy to move on.
 
BillyJoe said:
Then I don't undertand your analogy (aspirin <-> homeopathy)???
But it's not really important, I'm happy to move on.
Click to expand...

It was an analogy to represent malpractice. Instead of treating the bleeding wound, the doctor gave the man a pain-killer. Replace aspirin with any other pain-killer. The doctor isn't treating the problem, just making the patient feel good. This is much of what homeopathy is about, not treating the problem.. just making a person feel like they are.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It was an analogy to represent malpractice. Instead of treating the bleeding wound, the doctor gave the man a pain-killer. Replace aspirin with any other pain-killer. The doctor isn't treating the problem, just making the patient feel good.
Click to expand...
Yes, the choice of aspirin just made the example more complicated, because aspirin isn't a neutral substance here, it really does make the situation worse. He could be sued for the active damage of giving the aspirin.

Substitute paracetamol, and it flies better.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe,

Without actually saying "I was wrong", I think Thaiboxen more or less admitted his error with his last post. In these parts we call it a "Clayton's" admission. ;)

BillyJoe :cool:
 
No big deal, we seem to be clear what we all mean, now.

What does "Clayton's admission" mean?

Rolfe. (not from these parts, obviously)
 
Well to use a clasic quote "ignorance if the law is no excuse". Why should ignorance of reality be any different?
Click to expand...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance of reality is not against the law. If we allow everyone the types of freedoms that they should have, they end up with the freedom to fail or make mistakes. People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment. We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong. Removing the ignorance through education is the only real hope we have.

Deep down I think it is the mom who is responsible. She is the one who ultimately made bad desicions. I think punishment would be a waste of time. Her child was dying so she probably wasn't in a right frame of mind and maybe she is just ignorant of the facts. So while it is her fault I still wouldn't punish her for simply being stupid.

I don't think that punishing any of the parties will help keep it fom happening in the future. Education is the key.

Contrary to my opinion my son says the dog was definately being abused. "Dogs don't know about placebo effect" were his exact words.
 
jimlintott said:
People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment. We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong.

....

Contrary to my opinion my son says the dog was definately being abused. "Dogs don't know about placebo effect" were his exact words.
Click to expand...
On the second point, the law in this country is fairly clear in that while you are allowed to take your own body to any unqualified quack you like, only vets are allowed to diagnose and treat animals. The idea being that the animal shouldn't have to suffer for the health fads of its owner. I think taking a child to an unqualified "healer" rather than a doctor would probably be classed as child abuse, if there was anything really wrong with the child, and although the "healer" might not be breaking the law in quite the same way as if they were treating an animal, they'd be pretty heavily frowned upon. The real trouble starts when qualified vets (and qualified medics) fall prey to the delusion that shaken-up water has some sort of therapeutic properties.

The first point sounds sensible, and is sensible so far as it goes. But it's also the rallying cry of possibly the worst quackery-promoter of all time, Tim Bolen, who regularly sends out a newsletter "to all health freedom fighters everywhere". This concept of "health freedom" has been latched on to by all sorts of frauds and quacks in a bid to fend off the regulators - see Quackwatch article.

Should people's freedom to choose include the freedom of any unscrupulous charlatan to peddle unproved and ineffective treatments, and to induce sick people to give up on effective (but perhaps unpleasant) forms of treatment and pay the quack for the snake oil instead?

We seem to tolerate the most outrageous scams when it's simply a matter of beauty products being advertised. All these anti-wrinkle creams and anti-ageing potions, and a fool and her money are soon parted. If it spills further into the medical arena with quack remedies for minor and self-limiting ailments, is that much different? Does it matter?

But when it comes to life-threatening conditions and vulnerable people, shouldn't there be some way of stopping these unscrupulous elements from preying on that vulnerability by offering false hope of an easy cure?

Rolfe.
 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance of reality is not against the law.

But it should be. We are discussing whether or not there should be legal consequences, or if laws should be made.

If we allow everyone the types of freedoms that they should have, they end up with the freedom to fail or make mistakes. People should have the right to choose their own medical treatment.

I agree to a degree. When it comes to their children, however, they should only be allowed to choose REAL medical treatment. If they want to get themselves killed by choosing mythological treatments, fine.

We have to live with the fact that some will choose wrong. Removing the ignorance through education is the only real hope we have.

Removing the ignorant might work as well. How about removing the con-artists? I think homeopathy should be held up to the same strict standards of real medicine, then we'd be getting rid of con-artists.

Deep down I think it is the mom who is responsible. She is the one who ultimately made bad desicions. I think punishment would be a waste of time. Her child was dying so she probably wasn't in a right frame of mind and maybe she is just ignorant of the facts. So while it is her fault I still wouldn't punish her for simply being stupid.

I would, especially since she didn't learn anything from her mistake.

I don't think that punishing any of the parties will help keep it fom happening in the future. Education is the key.

I do, if homeopaths were held responsible for their "treatments", they might actually me careful of what they write. Right now, they have the freedom to write anything and call it "legitimate" medical treatment.
 
Rolfe,

Rolfe said:
What does "Clayton's admission" mean?
Click to expand...
The admission you make when you're not making an admission.

"Clayton's" is a non-alcoholic drink that tastes like beer. It was advertised as "The drink you have when you're not having a drink"

Thaiboxen's reply more or less implied that he had made an error with his previous reply but he didn't actually admit that he was wrong.

BillyJoe
 
BillyJoe said:
The admission you make when you're not making an admission.

"Clayton's" is a non-alcoholic drink that tastes like beer. It was advertised as "The drink you have when you're not having a drink"
Click to expand...
Thanks for the translation!

Thaiboxerken's point was perfectly reasonable, just made a little more obscure by an injudicious choice of example. The points raised in the thread go further than that, however.

Should people have a choice regarding their own medical treatment? Yes, of course.

Should people be allowed to reject medical intervention for themselves? Yes, the law specifically allows this.

Should people be allowed to make what the medical profession considers to be a bad choice, on behalf of their children? Probably not, but it raises awkward questions of personal and family freedom.

Should people be allowed to advertise and promote therapies which the medical establishment considers to be bogus?

I think that's the real killer. Of course it's always possible that the medical establishment might be wrong. However, what tends to happen is that unproven or ineffective pseudotherapies flourish like weeds, sometimes promoted by the genuinely deluded, but often simply as cynical scams. The people doing the promoting insist that their methods work, supporting this assertion by anecdotal testimonial (which might well simply be made up or submitted by their Aunt Jean), and sometimes by small, poorly-designed studies which have managed to get pubished in an obscure or fanzine-style journal.

The authorities are then in the unenviable position of either having to let them continue, or conducting time-consuming and expensive studies to refute these claims. Apparently you can't even bring a consumer siut against a company which states clearly in its advertising that its "remedies" are pure water, if you haven't yourself done actual tests on the actual water in question (see details here.)

Personally, I think we need the definition of "therapeutic claims" very strictly set out, even to cover stuff like "some people think that copper bracelets can relieve arthritis", when said by someone in the business of selling copper bracelets, and then the law come down like a ton of bricks on the bogus and unsubstantiated ones, including the publication of books with bogus advice, such as appeared to be at the root of the problem in the present case.

Rolfe.
 
Should people's freedom to choose include the freedom of any unscrupulous charlatan to peddle unproved and ineffective treatments, and to induce sick people to give up on effective (but perhaps unpleasant) forms of treatment and pay the quack for the snake oil instead?
Click to expand...

Ken and Rolfe, you both make some very good points.

I may be coming across as ambiguous but I have a reason for it. Look at Rolfe's quote above. Worded this way it is obviously a wrong, bad, choice. Like sticking your hands under a running lawn mower. However I don't think that people who choose these remedies are thinking along those lines. They only think it is going to work. Yes they are ignorant and stupid. We cannot make ignorance and stupidity illegal.

What about the religous who think they can be cured by prayer? I do feel that when these people refuse treatment for children they are committing child abuse. On the other hand I would defend their right to choose their own religion and believe whatever mumbo jumbo they want. That is the rock and hard place I find myself between.

In Canada, fortune tellers and the like have to put a disclaimer on advertising. 'For entertainment purposes only'. For homeopathy something similar would be a start but I think that any product that makes tharepuetic or healing claims should be put to strict scrutiny. These products (assuming they have been approved) should only be sold by pharmacists.

Unfortunately if homeopathy was illegal it would just go underground (think back alley abortions). This is why I think educating the public is the best weapon. I also tend to be against punishment as I don't think it is effective.

Is there some possibilty that people may seek some of these alternate treatments because of the cost of regular medicine? If that were true we should see more homeopathy in the U.S. where medical treatment can be very expensive compared to Canada or England.
 

However I don't think that people who choose these remedies are thinking along those lines.

I could care less for their intent.

They only think it is going to work. Yes they are ignorant and stupid. We cannot make ignorance and stupidity illegal.

Why not? There are plenty of laws out there that keep people from hurting themselves, seat-belt laws and such. Why not a law that requires anyone that gives "medical" advice be certified by a governing body that has the same standards as real medical treatments?

What about the religous who think they can be cured by prayer?

What about them? They should be convicted for negligence if they refuse real medical treatment for their children in preferrance for a prayer-only "treatment".

I do feel that when these people refuse treatment for children they are committing child abuse.

Yes, it's called negligence.

On the other hand I would defend their right to choose their own religion and believe whatever mumbo jumbo they want. That is the rock and hard place I find myself between.

I don't find myself in that position. They can believe what they want, and hurt themselves.. but when it comes to harming children with their stupidity, the line is drawn.

In Canada, fortune tellers and the like have to put a disclaimer on advertising. 'For entertainment purposes only'. For homeopathy something similar would be a start but I think that any product that makes tharepuetic or healing claims should be put to strict scrutiny. These products (assuming they have been approved) should only be sold by pharmacists.

I agree, that's they way it should be. However, the naturopath/homeopath and "alternative" medicine industry draws in so much money, and has so much money in government special-interest groups that it will never happen. This is one case where big-business controls the rules.

Unfortunately if homeopathy was illegal it would just go underground (think back alley abortions).

Good, then we can convict people.

This is why I think educating the public is the best weapon. I also tend to be against punishment as I don't think it is effective.

I think punishment is effective, I wanted to beat the crap out of people several times but realized I'd go to jail. Maybe I'm just in the minority, but consequences stop me from doing many things that I might otherwise do.

Is there some possibilty that people may seek some of these alternate treatments because of the cost of regular medicine?

Could be, does it matter?

If that were true we should see more homeopathy in the U.S. where medical treatment can be very expensive compared to Canada or England.

I don't know about that, there are other cultural factors involved I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom