Homeopath jailed for manslaughter

[wearestardust]

I expect most of us have seen this story

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/28/2698762.htm

It saddens and angers me too much to make much comment now, but it potentially has all kinds of legal ramifications, perhaps.

[Cosmic Teapot]

When is the Government going to pull their heads out of their collective asses and require that the homeopathy industry provide credible, independent, scientific research to support their claims? If they can't prove that their "magic water" has any measurable effects beyond the normal placebo effect, they should be banned as a fraud. Same goes for all the other "alternative" medicines and treatments. Prove your claims or be labelled "snake oil merchants" and be banned.

[robertkd]

As someone who suffers from eczema I find the parents action abhorrent but the cost of real medical treatment would have been way cheaper

homoeopathy all the profits none of the results but it makes you feel better by paying through the teeth.

[Caio]

Make homeopathy illegal, just outright illegal until proven otherwise. This sort of thing should not happen in a “first world” country.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I must warn you having been to India myself and being partially Indian myself I must say that I have seen worse cases. If you go to India and look at the news there will be at least 1 or 2 different cases.

Like either last year or 2 years ago or so there was a case where a person had raped and killed school children and then dumped their bodies in a drain. Police found 15 skeletons some time later and the man was convicted.

It was on the news in India though.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I must warn you having been to India myself and being partially Indian myself I must say that I have seen worse cases. If you go to India and look at the news there will be at least 1 or 2 different cases.

Like either last year or 2 years ago or so there was a case where a person had raped and killed school children and then dumped their bodies in a drain. Police found 15 skeletons some time later and the man was convicted.

It was on the news in India though.

I'm not sure how that's connected to homeopathy or "alternative" medicines.
Are you suggesting this homeopathy case is partly due to the accused being of Indian heritage? I would've thought the proliferation of Indian doctors would've indicated a cultural acceptance of western medical principles over traditional or alternative remedies.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I'm not sure how that's connected to homeopathy or "alternative" medicines.
Are you suggesting this homeopathy case is partly due to the accused being of Indian heritage? I would've thought the proliferation of Indian doctors would've indicated a cultural acceptance of western medical principles over traditional or alternative remedies.I was talking about similar incidents of neglect. I am not suggesting that the case occurred due to the accused being of Indian heritage but these sort of incidents occur a lot in countries like India and if you go there and watch the news there you will see such incidents.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I was talking about similar incidents of neglect. I am not suggesting that the case occurred due to the accused being of Indian heritage but these sort of incidents occur a lot in countries like India and if you go there and watch the news there you will see such incidents.

Still, how do you class the rape and murder of school children as "neglect"?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Buggar that. Stuffed up me words again. I should have said abuse and neglect instead of neglec then.

True the rape and murder of school children is not neglect but there are cases of neglect where children are not looked after by their parents very well.

[wearestardust]

Back on topic: for practical reasons I am against simply banning alternative medicines. Leaving aside my particular political commitments and views on freedom, there are major practical problems in defining what's alternative and what's mainstream. Evidence doesn't actually entirely cut the mustard because so much of mainstream medicine doesn't have a lot of evidence for it. Sometimes (usually) this is a bad thing, but ... anyone willing to be randomised to the non-treatment arm for acute appendicitis?

FWIW I think choice + a legal view that if you choose alternative medicines and it has bad outcomes then you get a belting, seems to be a good outcome.

[TÐöer]

Are you suggesting this homeopathy case is partly due to the accused being of Indian heritage?

Out of topic: Do you guys realise that the word Amok, came from the M-alay Language? I wonder why.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Because it can.

[Atrax Robustus]

Back on topic: for practical reasons I am against simply banning alternative medicines. Leaving aside my particular political commitments and views on freedom, there are major practical problems in defining what's alternative and what's mainstream. Evidence doesn't actually entirely cut the mustard because so much of mainstream medicine doesn't have a lot of evidence for it. Sometimes (usually) this is a bad thing, but ... anyone willing to be randomised to the non-treatment arm for acute appendicitis?

FWIW I think choice + a legal view that if you choose alternative medicines and it has bad outcomes then you get a belting, seems to be a good outcome.

Tend to agree - although I think the term alternative medicines needs to be formally redefined. Homeopathy along with other quackery needs to be clearly described to all and sundry as alternatives to medicine.

I'd be interested in an expansion of your view that 'so much of mainstream medicine doesn't have a lot of evidence for it', as well. Without visibility of the examples that you are implying here, I have to say that your statement is a bit of a stretch.

Back to the OP. It's a pity that this happened and I think everyone feels for that poor little girl. Unfortunately this incident won't lead to a robust challenge on the validity of homeopathy and other practices of the same ilk. Personally - I am pissed off with the implied validity of quackery in general and the willing application of that validity by authorities. (Tends to emulate the validity that is given to religious spokespersons on subjects that they have absolutely no knowledge of or any credibility in).

An interesting question that relates to the thread: for those of you who have private health insurance, have a look at your policy documents and see whether homeopathy (and similar snake-oil "professions") is included in your treatment/coverage options and how much per year you are entitled to expend in using these "services".

If they are there - then try speaking with your health fund to see if you can have that ceiling limit added to a line that you will use - say Dental Procedures or Specs. I'd be very interested to hear of any company that is willing to do so.:mad:

[Atrax Robustus]

Out of topic: Do you guys realise that the word Amok, came from the M-alay Language? I wonder why.

Surely no-one has accused TheDoer of running amok? :eek:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

They have now. ;)

[robertkd]

Back on topic: for practical reasons I am against simply banning alternative medicines. Leaving aside my particular political commitments and views on freedom, there are major practical problems in defining what's alternative and what's mainstream. Evidence doesn't actually entirely cut the mustard because so much of mainstream medicine doesn't have a lot of evidence for it. Sometimes (usually) this is a bad thing, but ... anyone willing to be randomised to the non-treatment arm for acute appendicitis?

FWIW I think choice + a legal view that if you choose alternative medicines and it has bad outcomes then you get a belting, seems to be a good outcome.

No, I think they should have their claims backed by real and credible medical research, otherwise they can bugger off with the rest of the snake oil idiots,...

[Cosmic Teapot]

Buggar that. Stuffed up me words again. I should have said abuse and neglect instead of neglec then.

True the rape and murder of school children is not neglect but there are cases of neglect where children are not looked after by their parents very well.

Unfortunately, we don't need to board a plane to see that.
An afternoon walking around a Westfield's in a low socio-economic area will do the trick.
Some of those drug-fucked bitches have a disturbing amount of grubby children in tow and make Britney Spears look like Mother Of The Year.
There are some kids you see and instantly suspect that they have to fight their siblings for food.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Oh yeah but that's absolutely nothing compared to India now. And you see those kids everywhere in cities and country towns there.

[Cosmic Teapot]

FWIW I think choice + a legal view that if you choose alternative medicines and it has bad outcomes then you get a belting, seems to be a good outcome.

You call a little girl dying in agony a good outcome?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Why is there a disturbing pattern between religion and negligence?

[wearestardust]

You call a little girl dying in agony a good outcome?

:( No of course not. I meant the court outcome is better than it might have been. In particular, it is a good outcome that the courts have come to a view that someone who denies proper reatment to a child and relies on bogus medicine is guilty of negligent manslaughter, compared with the alternative which might have been that the courts shrugged their shoulders and said "oh well, homeopathy's claims are as good as any other, what a shame". That was a live possibility given that the decision at the end of the day sometimes comes down to who can spin the best story, not what the scientific evidence is.

What this means is that people can remain free to pursue whatever garbage they want, but when it counts if that garbage crosses from harmless nonsense and waste of money to doing harm, then they will pay. That is also what I meant by a good outcome, given (as I noted above) my particular views on living in a free society. I suspect that is something we may just end up differing on.

[wearestardust]

I'd be interested in an expansion of your view that 'so much of mainstream medicine doesn't have a lot of evidence for it', as well. Without visibility of the examples that you are implying here, I have to say that your statement is a bit of a stretch.


Sure. Can I come back to it though? It is complex. Can I cheat for the interim (by aping a medieval monk and making a claim to authority), to build up the anticipation, and note that I have made a living and have been published on this stuff?

I'll also just make this further point for purposes of clarity: I'm not saying that, on average, alternative medicine is no worse than mainstream medicine; that is clearly untrue. what I'm saying is that it is difficult to impossible to draw a strict line that includes just what you want to include, no more and no less, and exclude what you want to exclude, no more and no less. So my point is entirely a practical one that it is hard to effect a solution. Declaration of conflict of interest: I'm not actually in favour of banning alternative medicines, other than those that are harmful (in the 'when you ingest them they make you sick or kill you sense), and the TGA already does that. So I'm not totally committed to working on the problem until it is solved. I'm happy just to point out the difficulties.:cool:

[Atrax Robustus]

Sure. Can I come back to it though? It is complex. Can I cheat for the interim (by aping a medieval monk and making a claim to authority), to build up the anticipation, and note that I have made a living and have been published on this stuff?
Appetite suitably whetted. Looking forward it. ;)

[Unsacred Cow]

Unfortunately, we don't need to board a plane to see that.
An afternoon walking around a Westfield's in a low socio-economic area will do the trick.


I think that's the Westfield I avoid for fear of having shopping but no car to pack it into upon leaving.

I did, many years ago, work in one such Westfield. I could have well have been working in the front bar of some sleazy pub.

The blatant negligence and abuse you see in such places has had me gobsmacked at times. I always find it difficult to know whether I should come to the defense of the kid in question. I fear the possible stabbing I might receive in return from the parent.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

This is the attitude I take in such situations like the Westfield thing.

If I see a kid being beaten up I don't bother doing anything about it. It's none of my business and I won't exactly be a hero if I do anything about it. I just ignore the situation and/or watch it from a distance if it is one of my enemies being beaten up.

If the parents don't bother stopping their kid being beaten up it's their problem and not mine.

[Unsacred Cow]

This is the attitude I take in such situations like the Westfield thing.

If I see a kid being beaten up I don't bother doing anything about it. It's none of my business and I won't exactly be a hero if I do anything about it. I just ignore the situation and/or watch it from a distance if it is one of my enemies being beaten up.

If the parents don't bother stopping their kid being beaten up it's their problem and not mine.

Oh, I was actually referring to parents either verbally abusing their (usually young) children or being unnecessarily physical with them.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Oh, I was actually referring to parents either verbally abusing their (usually young) children or being unnecessarily physical with them.In any case it is still the parents' problem...

One of our neighbours, Gazza, Despot of Chavistan, only sees his kids occasionally, when their mothers (plural!) bring them over.

And the little daughter... the only times I notice him and her together, he is smacking her, shouting at her and calling her a "f!king little idiot".

And she will become one of the next generation of parents, probably before she gets to vote.

Rhetorically: what could one do and expect any real, significant action?

I had quicker results when one of the other nabes belted his dog with a lump of firewood.Not much of a surprise - I don't think any kid would want to see their dad after that. Would they?

[Unsacred Cow]

One of our neighbours, Gazza, Despot of Chavistan, only sees his kids occasionally, when their mothers (plural!) bring them over.

And the little daughter... the only times I notice him and her together, he is smacking her, shouting at her and calling her a "f!king little idiot".

And she will become one of the next generation of parents, probably before she gets to vote.

Rhetorically: what could one do and expect any real, significant action?


Yep. It's a sad situation.

I've been in a supermarket with my young child and come up against a mother correcting (?) their child using the kind of language I'd expect to hear in a front bar of a rough pub.

I have to be careful in these situation as I have quite an animated face that doesn't hide much of how I feel (as I've been told on many occasions).


I had quicker results when one of the other nabes belted his dog with a lump of firewood.

That says something all on it's own really.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I have personally experienced this sort of abuse. Not only directly from my parents (which constituted a small portion of all the abuse I suffered) but from teachers and aides as well as a certain loudmouth fuckwit (what they refer to as an "autism expert") who stank like cigarette smoke and yelled at me.

I wish I could run all them over with some of those 18 wheelers...

[Unsacred Cow]

I have personally experienced this sort of abuse. Not only directly from my parents (which constituted a small portion of all the abuse I suffered) but from teachers and aides as well as a certain loudmouth fuckwit (what they refer to as an "autism expert") who stank like cigarette smoke and yelled at me.

I wish I could run all them over with some of those 18 wheelers...

I'm sorry to hear that you suffered that Croc.

Sounds like the 'autism expert' was an expert in the Billy Connolly sense of the word. X being an unknown quantity and spurt being a drip under pressure.

[Durro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&feature=related

:D

[wearestardust]

OK. Back to the issue of drawing a line between alternative and mainstream medicines. Sorry, it’s taken me a little while to craft this without a planet-sized load of incoherence and tl:dr (rather than the merely planetoid-sized bundle here).

The issue I’m raising is that if one wants to draw a line between “allowed” and “not allowed” based on evidence, and get just the result one wants – that is, just (most of) mainstream medicine in and (most of) alternative medicine out, then uncertainties about the evidence for mainstream medical practice are going to make this very difficult, indeed I think it is impossible.

By the way, before I continue, I follow the view that there is no such thing as alternative and mainstream medicine; there is medicine that works, and there is practice that is not medicine. But I’ll use the terms “alternative” and “mainstream” for clarity where required. Where I don’t qualify, I mean “mainstream” medicine.

The problem in a sentence is this. Most alternative medicine is not supported by evidence, but a lot of mainstream medicine is inadequately supported as well.

This is often a surprise to many people. The reasons why it is the case are, in short, as follows. First, as an overarching point, doctors are not scientists. Don’t take my word for it, here’s the past editor of the British Medical Journal saying it.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/0-h (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/0-h)

The scope of medical practice is determined not by evaluation of evidence but by medical consensus. Now, that consensus is typically informed by evidence, but the evidence is often poor. Good quality clinical trials are rare. They are generally good for pharmaceuticals because regulatory bodies require that they be soundly demonstrated to be safe (relative to the condition being treated) and that they work before they are allowed to be sold. Medical devices – hips, knees, corneas, pacemakers, etc, are generally only required to be demonstrably safe to be sold, and for ‘low risk’ devices that generally means that they are manufactured under a quality program, not that there’s been an actual clinical trial. As for medical practice: there is no legal requirement to practice within the bounds of evidence based medicine at all (legal risks aside, but that’s another thing all together with unnecessary complexity for the present discussion). So why do clinical trials of medical practice happen? Well, there are two reasons. Sometimes medical device companies will fund trials because they want to prove their product and sell it (noting that many countries, including Australia, require reviews of scientific evidence before they will decide whether or not to pay for new medical technologies under their public health care systems). Mainly, however, while medical scientists can be assumed in most cases to be seeking the good of humanity, the purpose of trials is frequently to get published and advance medical careers. Now, and here’s the crunch point: the demands of “proving” a product, or of getting published and often, lead to cheap and short-duration trials that have unsatisfactorily high degrees of uncertainty. And sometimes medical practice comes into use that is later found to harm or even kill people.

So: an objective ‘evidence standard’ won’t get you where you want to be.

Now, I should qualify these comments.

First, what the above means is that mainstream medicine is imperfect on the evidence front. On balance, though, mainstream medicine still has a good evidence base, and a fantastic evidence base compared with alternative medicines. The problems of quality of evidence in mainstream medicine does not mean that the problem of lack of evidence in alternative medicine is suddenly not a problem.

Secondly, the situation is improving all the time. Over the last couple of decades, and especially in the last, there has been a sharp increase in emphasis on taking into consideration of evidence, and understanding what is good and bad evidence, in the medical professions. For a while there was resistance from the medical community and much scorn of the idea that doctors should inform their practice based on clinical research. Not any more. Cancer care in particular is an area where for some time now conduct and application of research is part of day to day clinical practice, and this attitude is spreading.

[Caio]

Back on topic: for practical reasons I am against simply banning alternative medicines. Leaving aside my particular political commitments and views on freedom, there are major practical problems in defining what's alternative and what's mainstream. <removed content for brevity>

FWIW I think choice + a legal view that if you choose alternative medicines and it has bad outcomes then you get a belting, seems to be a good outcome.

Generally I would agree with you, but the problem that arises is when treatment using alternative medicine is used to treat those who have no choice, if an individual wants to use homeopathy to cure his cancer, then go for it, but if someone wants to use it to cure somebody else’s cancer (or whatever disease you can think of) then it’s a problem.

Its not good enough for a little child to die because the parents made a stupid choice on their behalf, and later punishing them, it should have been prevented in the first place, but short of outlawing the practice I don’t see how this could be done…

One-way of looking at it is like this; death from homeopathy is negligence (as ruled by the courts in this case), when somebody dies from cancer following chemotherapy (other factors aside) the treatment failed because the cancer was too aggressive or too advanced. There is no evidence to support homeopathy as treatment for anything except maybe dehydration where you take medication orally, MIRACLE! And offering such practices to the public is to invite tragedies to occur, and prevention is better than having to deal with the aftermath simply because:

people can remain free to pursue whatever garbage they want

[Caio]

Choice is choice, and provided there are no repercussions for the genuine practitioners, any adult should be able to choose their treatment.

Yes I agree, but if only it really was like this, and in the case of medicine, so simple. If somebody dies as a result of undertaking “alternative” medicine, who is to blame? The patient for making a faulty decision, or the practitioner, who either through ignorance (thus believing the treatment works) or misinformation (they lied), lead to the patients’ death?

It comes down to how much legislation should be in place for the protection of people and society. False and misleading claims should not be tolerated, wearestardust made an interesting point, but at least they have a basis on which to make their claims, and a slightly tested drug with a reasonable degree of success is better than an untested one with no known degree of success.

I am all for choice, as long as the choice is personal and has no ill effects on others, unfortunately not everybody is well informed and educated to “reason” what is a good choice, and those that are can even be duped into believing non-sense. It is a tricky issue so I’m interested in hearing more of what others think…

[Caio]

...and any consequences should be viewed as a risk of their own undertaking.

I guess, and your probably right too…but what about using said care with no “mainstream” medical qualifications being used to treat “minors” or anybody else not able to give consent? Other than making the practice illegal, how do we protect these people from harm before it happens, because its not good enough to deal with the aftermath and hope nobody does it again?

I’m not saying that we can stop it entirely by the way, there is no perfect solution short of totalitarian control, but to have in place legislation restricting such practices and to whom they may practice…

[Dowser]

Just a quick point, mainstream medicine is ALWAYS evidence based. But the qualifier here is that there are degrees of evidence. eg. observational evidence, case control studies, randomised controlled studies etc etc.

Where homeopathy falls down is that there is no strong evidence for its efficacy beyond individuals accounts (placebo, time as a healer), it fails in RCT's and more importantly there is NO credible rationale on HOW it could work. Fails on all accounts. Glad to see the courts saw some sense.

[Atrax Robustus]

Just a quick point, mainstream medicine is ALWAYS evidence based. But the qualifier here is that there are degrees of evidence. eg. observational evidence, case control studies, randomised controlled studies etc etc.

Where homeopathy falls down is that there is no strong evidence for its efficacy beyond individuals accounts (placebo, time as a healer), it fails in RCT's and more importantly there is NO credible rationale on HOW it could work. Fails on all accounts. Glad to see the courts saw some sense.

I'd love to sit in on a homeopathic mortality and morbidity review as well!