The UK Refuses to Drop Homeopathy

Though the response has weak points, the UK Government stands up for the use of homeopathy in the NHS and demonstrates serious flaws in claims made by the Science and Technology Committee.

In a decision that reaffirms the individual’s right to choose, the United Kingdom’s Department of Health has slapped down the Science and Technology Committee’s demand to abandon homeopathy. Rather than report on it honestly, news media are simply allowing anti-homeopathy forces free rein to give their opinions.

After reviewing “Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy”, which denounced homeopathy and demanded that it be erased from the formulary, the UK Government’s response for the Department of Health (DOH) took the Science and Techology Committee’s points on one by one—and demonstrated why they were unreasonable and counter to the people’s needs.

Rebutted Points

“Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy” makes many claims against homeopathy. Each one was taken on by the Government. Herein is a sampling:

The Demand that the NHS Spend Money to Identify How Much Has Been Spent Over the Last 10 Years

On the demand that the total amount spent on homeopathy over the last ten years be researched and calculated, the response noted that it is “important to keep spending in perspective”. They point out that:

…scrutinising individual trusts’ finances to the level of detail that would be needed to answer this question fully, or similar questions in other areas, could well require a disproportionate amount of resource.

The Claim that Homeopathy Is Only a Placebo Effect

The Science and Technology Committee (STC) made many points claiming that homeopathy is merely a placebo effect. They make the claim—without substantiation—that homeopathy is ineffective and that, therefore, it is unethical to prescribe homeopathic remedies. The demand ran several paragraphs and covered tired old territory about randomized controlled trials, meta analyses, and even dipped into sarcasm with, “We would expect the Government to have a proper understanding of the power and complexities of the placebo effect and the ethical issues surrounding its use in a clinical setting.” The Government’s response was to the point, and belied the claims made:

The Government agrees that, when looking at the evidence base for efficacy, it is important to focus on the most scientifically robust studies and evidence. We note, however, that a “proper understanding of the power and complexities of the placebo effect” is difficult to achieve, since we are not aware of any scientific consensus at present on the mechanisms by which placebos have an effect. We note also that it is not for the Department of Health to comment on the ethics of the use of a particular treatment in a particular setting.