Lyndsay Moss: Should the NHS really prescribe this hocus-pocus?

Published on Monday 7 July 2008 21:35

IMAGINE going to see your doctor. He says you need to take a drug for your high blood pressure. The drug contains so little of the active substance said to reduce your blood pressure that not a single molecule of it can be found. Happy with that?

Probably not. But, according to the Society of Homeopaths, 30 million people across Europe are happy to accept this kind of explanation when they go to see one of its members.

It is hardly surprising that there are many sceptics of homeopathy, developed in 1796 by German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Based on the principle that "like cures like", animal, plant and mineral extracts, which in healthy people would cause symptoms, are used to treat those same symptoms.

The extracts are diluted to such a degree that not one molecule of the original substance can be detected. So, how on earth could such treatments actually work?

Like many others, I have my concerns about homeopathy. Generally, people should be allowed to use their own money to buy whatever mumbo-jumbo, hocus-pocus remedies they like, as long as no laws are broken and they do not harm themselves.

The supporters of homeopathy stress that their products are extremely safe. Possibly because there's nothing in them. Sorry, did I write that out loud?

But my biggest worry is when NHS money is used to pay for homeopathic medicine, and it is a concern clearly shared by members of the British Medical Association.

Delegates at its annual conference in Edinburgh this week will spark what is likely to be a lively debate about homeopathy and other complementary remedies.

Among a number of motions, doctors will call on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to "review and report on the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic remedies and to recommend whether they should continue to be funded by the NHS".

Homeopathic medicines are currently quite widely paid for, with tens of thousands spent on them in Scotland each year. Indeed, Glasgow has its own homeopathic hospital.

But there is little evidence from medical trials that the treatments actually work, apart from having a placebo effect.

Most scientists claim that the basis of the whole practice is flawed, meaning that it could not possibly work. At the same time, homeopaths will produce a mass of patients queuing up to say how much it has helped them cope with their various ills.

My gut feeling lies towards the hocus-pocus end of the spectrum (cue letters from the aforementioned patients).

This feeling is strengthened by some of the descriptions on the Society of Homeopaths website. One potion is described as "unique potentised energy medicine". Did I click on a Harry Potter fan-site by mistake?

In one section, it explains that clinical applications of homeopathic substances are discovered in a number of ways. One involves looking at the "signature" of the natural substance. For example, the shiny black berries of Deadly Nightshade are useful in treating fever because they resemble the dilated pupils of the eyes during that ailment.

Using the same logic, it is surprising that there are any leopards left on the planet given that their skin must make an excellent treatment for spots.

I don't enjoy being a sceptic, and would love to believe that harmless pills, devoid of powerful drugs with serious side effects, could help people suffering from a variety of illnesses. But at a time when the NHS is denying patients fully licensed drugs because of cost, we cannot let a single penny be spent on treatments for which the evidence base is considered slim.

I hope the BMA succeeds in passing its motion that a thorough examination of the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic remedies should be conducted. And I hope the results of any review prove me wrong, for the sake of the millions already spent.