Death by Homeopathy

[Trebuchet]

I finally had to stop lurking and register because of an item in last week's commentary -- the one about the mother who took her child off chemo at the advice of a homeopath.

How come both the mother and her adviser aren't in prison? At least for child neglect, if not for manslaughter? With proper treatment, the kid had a chance. Without, none at all. Where were the state authorities? How come the doctors (the real ones) didn't notify someone? And finally, where was the outrage from Randi and the Forum?

Treb

 

[Garrette]

Welcome to non-lurking, treb. (May I borrow you next time I storm a castle?)

I have three suspicions:

First, I suspect that they are not in prison because the authorities are loathe to get too involved in what are perceived as parental rights, though there are precedents for it.

Second, I think the outrage is assumed. While there may be nothing said about this particular incident, similar ones are addressed frequently on this forum.

Third, I think Randi addressed it well in his commentary about it being difficult to be angry at the mother who was simply desperate to find a way to help her child. Her choice was tragic but understandable. Despite what some woo-woos claim, stepping on the grief of another is not something most of us do lightly here.

I personally would be more inclined to see the homeopath tried than the mother. The homeopath is selling a service that the consumer should be able to assume is shown to be efficacious, but which we all know has been shown not to be so. Even if the homeopath legitimately believes, the fact he is selling the service gives him greater responsibility regarding research and truthful presentation.

The mother can arguably be said only to have followed the advice of what she reasonably perceived to be a respectable authority figure.

 

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Where were the state authorities? How come the doctors (the real ones) didn't notify someone? And finally, where was the outrage from Randi and the Forum?

Well, it's not necessarily all that simple. Can children be made wards of court in America? How easy is it for medics to initiate that if the parents refuse treatment - Jehovah's Witnesses perhaps? The law does give a lot of weight to the rights of the parent too. Also, one wonders how aware anyone was of what was happening while there was still time to do something.

It's horrendous, I know, but often the medics and the authorities are in the situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The bigger picture is the situation where homoeopathy is promoted as accepted medicine, even by some medics. This makes it all too easy for people that way inclined to argue that it's just a difference of opinion, and they have a right to choose. This will go on happening until the medical establishment stops giving diplomatic immunity to homoeopathy from the usual requirements to comply with the standards of evidence based medicine.

Regarding the Forum, my first response was this post here. I then started this thread in this actual forum. We don't like these people, and we're saying so, but realistically, outrage posted here isn't going to have a huge impact on the situation.

Rolfe.

 

[Trebuchet]

You're right, of course, about authorities not wanting to interfere with parental rights. It's clearly a touchy subject.
Still, the authorities ARE very quick to jump in where physical or especially sexual abuse are suspected. And doctors and other workers are required by law to report suspicions of such abuse. (The Michael Jackson case, for example.) How much more abusive can you get than causing death?

There have, by the way, been cases of the state stepping in where children were denied medical treatment by Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientist parents. The results, I think, have been pretty inconclusive.

In a way, I hope the mother does go ahead and sue the doctors. It would make for an interesting case an perhaps bring some things out in the open.

I shall endeavor to moderate my outrage in the future!

Treb

 

[Suezoled]

I say this woman is responsible and while she is suffering, she made an awful decision. She will likely never acknowledge she is responsible for her daughter's death. It's easier to blame someone, such as the chemotherapy and the doctors who gave it.

 

[Tanja]

I get really angry when I read homeopaths' claims. It is in the core of their advertising to promote homeopathy because it is "safer", "does not produce side effects", "uses only natural substances and no chemicals" etc.

Most people do not know enough about science and medicine and don't understand the difference between facts and claims. Also, of course, most people do not want to see their child suffer in any way. If a doctor offers a mother the choice of "a medicine with this and that side effect" and a "homeopathic medicine with no side effects and based on natural ingredients" I can believe that many people would, because of their ignorance, choose the homeopahic "medicine" for their child. I also think that homeopaths should be legally responsible for every case in which a patient suffers because of failure to recieve proper medication.

Earlier today I was browsing BBC news archives for articles on homeopathy. There was an article back in 2000 on a GP in London who prescribed homeopathic medications to her patients, and used dowsing with a crystal over a book on herbal remedies to help her prescribe the "right" medicine. She prescribed homeopathic medicines to people with bacterial infections. She was eventually reported to the relevant authorities, and the consequence was that her GP licence was withdrawn for THREE MONTHS. I do not understand why she was not banned permanently from practicing medicine?

 

[Rolfe]

"uses only natural substances and no chemicals" etc.

I know we've lampooned this on other threads, but why not have another go?

How "natural" is antimatter?

To quote those 24-carat nut-jobs Peter Fisher and Lionel Milgrom, talking on the BBC Horizon programme:

DR LIONEL MILGROM (Homeopath): In principle you can make a homeopathic remedy out of absolutely anything that's plant.

PETER FISHER: Deadly nightshade.

LIONEL MILGROM: Animal.

PETER FISHER: Snake venom.

LIONEL MILGROM: Mineral.

PETER FISHER: Calcium carbonate, which is of course chalk.

LIONEL MILGROM: Disease product.

PETER FISHER: Tuberculous gland of a cow.

LIONEL MILGROM: Radiation.

I'm not quite sure how they manage that last one, but while they were saying all this the camera was panning over shelves of "proving" books, and I noticed "Nylon" among them.

I wonder how impressed some of the "natural" remedy fans would be by the details of some of this.

Rolfe.

 

[patnray]

The sad part is that the mother believes the homeopath's claims that it was the doctors who made her daughter ill. She's more likely to sue them than the homeopaths who convinced her to replace proven, but difficult, treatments with nonsense, especially since withdrawal from chemotherapy made her daughter feel better (temporarily), just as the homeopaths predicted...

I do think there is a case to be made against the practitioners, but it would be a difficult battle. I don't think there are that many prosecutors savy enough to understand the issue willing to commit to the time and expense it would entail.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think both the woman and her advisor should be jailed, so that they will not cause harm upon another child. The woman because she still doesn't understand that homeopathy is crap.. even after her child died, she blames the qualified medical doctors for the child's death. The homeopath because he is spreading the ignorance.

 

[Rolfe]

I think both the woman and her advisor should be jailed, so that they will not cause harm upon another child. The woman because she still doesn't understand that homeopathy is crap.. even after her child died, she blames the qualified medical doctors for the child's death. The homeopath because he is spreading the ignorance.

Isn't it interesting, though, that the mother wouldn't tell Randi's informant, whom she had consulted for legal help, the name of the book she got her advice from? If she was so sure it was right, why not proclaim it to the world?

Back to my suspicion that these people are often in cognitive dissonance. Part of them does believe, but another part of them knows full well it's BS, and that part kicks in when embarrassment or possible falsification looms, and engages "evasion" mode.

Rolfe.

 

[Paladin]

Problem is, the homeopathic treatment itself did not kill the child. The disease killed the child. You'd be hard pressed to convict a homeopath of malpractice, because it can be shown that homeopathic treatment is non-toxic. Also, considering the odd philosophy behind homeopathy, you'd be hard pressed to prove that the homeopath acted outside the bounds of his discipline.

However, if a real doctor prescribed nothing but placebo to a cancer patient, you could convict the real doctor of malpractice. If the mother refused chemotherapy and knowingly went to a real doctor who prescribed nothing but placebo, you might also have a case for neglect.

Homeopathy enjoys what Philip K. Dick would call "uniquely special easier conditions". It's wrong, and as we know from this example, people die because of that mistake.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Problem is, the homeopathic treatment itself did not kill the child. The disease killed the child. You'd be hard pressed to convict a homeopath of malpractice, because it can be shown that homeopathic treatment is non-toxic.

If you went to the ER because an accident chopped off your hand, and the physicians there just gave you some Motrin and told you to walk it off.. is that malpractice? After all, it's not the aspirin that killed you, it's the free flowing blood from your wound. Negligence is a form of malpractice, homeopathic treatment is pure negligence.


Also, considering the odd philosophy behind homeopathy, you'd be hard pressed to prove that the homeopath acted outside the bounds of his discipline.

When the homeopath tells someone to stop medical treatment, he is well outside the bounds of his "discipline". In fact, homeopathy is nothing but quackery and should be outlawed anyway. Every medical condition is outside of a homeopaths discipline.

However, if a real doctor prescribed nothing but placebo to a cancer patient, you could convict the real doctor of malpractice.

Homeopathy IS nothing but placebo. Why not convict homeopaths as well?

 

[BTox]

Homeopathy IS nothing but placebo. Why not convict homeopaths as well?

I don't know the specifics of this case but many homeopaths in the U.S. are not MDs and are unlicensed. There are, however, homeopaths that are also MDs (as absurd as it sounds), and some of these have lost their licenses to practice medicine and have been criminally charged for negligence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know the specifics of this case but many homeopaths in the U.S. are not MDs and are unlicensed.

Homeopaths are simply people that are pretending to treat people medically, whether they believe in their remedies or not, they should be held accountable. I don't know of malpractice is the charge that would quite fit, but what they are doing should be illegal.

 

[BTox]

Homeopaths are simply people that are pretending to treat people medically, whether they believe in their remedies or not, they should be held accountable. I don't know of malpractice is the charge that would quite fit, but what they are doing should be illegal.

Agree 100%. Hopefully someday congress and/or FDA has the gumption to do something about it. I presume the reason they don't now is that the prevalence of use is so low it falls under the radar screen of concern.

 

[Rolfe]

Without actually going back to a two-week-old Commentary (cripes, I sound like von Daniken....), as far as I remember this wasn't about a woman consulting a particular homoeopath, it was about her reading a book by a homoeopath and making decisions based on that.

She wouldn't tell the name of the book, but would anyone care to bet that if we could consult it, we'd find a cute little disclaimer tucked away somewhere?

Rolfe.

 

[BillyJoe]

..... it's not the aspirin that killed you, it's the free flowing blood from your wound.

I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism?

 

[Rolfe]

I get your point but did you know that aspirin increases bleeding by interfering with the body's clotting mechanism?

I thought that was his point, but now you mention it - was it?

Rolfe.

 

[nick]

We don't have any evidence that the child wouldn't have died anyway. If it turns out that the prognosis was zero, then maybe the child had a better last few days/weeks on the homeopathic "remedy" than being pumped full of chemo.

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.

 

[Rolfe]

We don't have much detail on this, that's true, but the survival rate for childhood leukaemias is now extremely encouraging, and the general tenor of the tale tends to suggest (plausibly) that the prognosis was not hopeless until the stage when the mother re-presented the child seeking a blood transfusion.

Also, even doctors don't like torturing kids when it's hopeless. Care of the quality of life is also considered in "real" medicine, and I think giving credit to woo-woo for a "peaceful end" can cover up some absolutely horrendous practices.

Rolfe.