Why it is unethical to use homeopathy on horses

[ash_vet]

Hmm, no he said he was "presented with animals who have been too far gone, but owners persisted with homeopathy" so to me this reads that he had already dismissed them and then said he would have been able to help... no?

Yes, I agree ycbm, but sometimes conventional medicine doesn't work either. However, in my mind, if a doctor or a vet were to control/regulate the practice, it would protect more people. As I work in pharma, I meet clinicians who also have this debate in real life and I know I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Even if the professionals condemn it, it's not going to mean people will not continue to use homeopathy. The frustration continues.

I actually meant exactly what YCBM stated. I have been presented with patients who have been treated with homeopathic remedies, in some cases this treatment has been allowed to persist for too long a period of time. When these homeopathic rememdies do not work, and I have been asked to try and treat a condition, I have often been left with a problem that is far more difficult to deal with. I have lost a horse who had a nasty wound over a tendon. Rather than call the vet, the horse was treated homeopathically for three weeks. By the time I got to see the leg, the infection had spread throughout the entire leg and the animal was unable to be saved with conventional medicines.

You say that it needs tighter control, it certainly does. Vets need to be banned from prescribing it. Vets are in a position where the majority of the members of the public trust our decision making. Therefore if you have a small minority of vets prescribing homeopathy, and a majority like myself who believe the whole thing to be a massive waste of time you end up with a mixed message.

There is a place for homeopathy, and unfortunately it falls in the same category as prayer, snake oil, drinking the blood of a bull etc. This is not a myth that vets should be peddling and providing false hope whilst making a financial gain.

 

[ash_vet]

Just because someone is a trained vet doesn't mean they won't make mistakes.

Just because someone is a trained vet doesn't mean that they will always be able to diagnose a problem.

Just because something can treat a condition doesn't guarantee that it will always do so, or do so without undesirable side effects.

All of this can hold but it still doesn't make homeopathy work. In homeopathy you have something with:
- outrageously silly claims, e.g. water has memory
- claims that do not cohere with anything else we know about physics and chemistry, e.g. like cures like and dilution increases potency
- claims that are not even internally consistent, e.g. non-water homeopathic tablets should be impossible based on the theory itself
- and with a placebo effect.

very well put. vets are humans and are capable of making mistakes in the same way that a doctor will occasionally accidentally kill a patient. this does not make homeopathy an acceptable alternative to veterinary surgeons and conventional medicine.

 

[ycbm]

Even if the professionals condemn it, it's not going to mean people will not continue to use homeopathy. The frustration continues.

If professionals condemn it, then people can be prosecuted for failing to obtain veterinary treatment for their animals.

If vets oversee it, or still worse actually administer it, those prosecutions are not possible.

There's no place, imo, for vets prescribing homeopathy. I'd go so far as to say it's scandalous that the BVA pay more attention to their members making a lot of money from it than they do to animal welfare.

 

[tallyho!]

I actually meant exactly what YCBM stated. I have been presented with patients who have been treated with homeopathic remedies, in some cases this treatment has been allowed to persist for too long a period of time. When these homeopathic rememdies do not work, and I have been asked to try and treat a condition, I have often been left with a problem that is far more difficult to deal with. I have lost a horse who had a nasty wound over a tendon. Rather than call the vet, the horse was treated homeopathically for three weeks. By the time I got to see the leg, the infection had spread throughout the entire leg and the animal was unable to be saved with conventional medicines.

You say that it needs tighter control, it certainly does. Vets need to be banned from prescribing it. Vets are in a position where the majority of the members of the public trust our decision making. Therefore if you have a small minority of vets prescribing homeopathy, and a majority like myself who believe the whole thing to be a massive waste of time you end up with a mixed message.

There is a place for homeopathy, and unfortunately it falls in the same category as prayer, snake oil, drinking the blood of a bull etc. This is not a myth that vets should be peddling and providing false hope whilst making a financial gain.

If professionals condemn it, then people can be prosecuted for failing to obtain veterinary treatment for their animals.

If vets oversee it, or still worse actually administer it, those prosecutions are not possible.

There's no place, imo, for vets prescribing homeopathy. I'd go so far as to say it's scandalous that the BVA pay more attention to their members making a lot of money from it than they do to animal welfare.

Ok Ash vet, I obviously read it wrong. It can happen.

I see your point of view, I really do, however from where I see it, it solves nothing.

Desperate people seek miracles.

 

[ycbm]

Ok Ash vet, I obviously read it wrong. It can happen.

I see your point of view, I really do, however from where I see it, it solves nothing.

Desperate people seek miracles.

Let the desperate people seek a miracle after, or even at the same time as, giving the animal the treatment that is most likely to help it. Let them be prosecuted if they won't do that, the same as any of us would if we fail to seek treatment from a vet for a sick animal.

There's no place for vets making a profit from homeopathy, it's completely unethical.

 

[chillipup]

If professionals condemn it, then people can be prosecuted for failing to obtain veterinary treatment for their animals.

If vets oversee it, or still worse actually administer it, those prosecutions are not possible.

There's no place, imo, for vets prescribing homeopathy. I'd go so far as to say it's scandalous that the BVA pay more attention to their members making a lot of money from it than they do to animal welfare.

Let the desperate people seek a miracle after, or even at the same time as, giving the animal the treatment that is most likely to help it. Let them be prosecuted if they won't do that, the same as any of us would if we fail to seek treatment from a vet for a sick animal.

There's no place for vets making a profit from homeopathy, it's completely unethical.

Well said.

 

[Booboos]

Parents are certainly being prosecuted for not seeking appropriate medical treatment for their gravely ill children and relying instead on naturopaths and other quacks who peddle homeopathy, natural remedies and herbalism (the latter without any medical knowledge. I have nothing against using herbs which can be effective but in that case they should be classed as medications and prescribed by doctors with all the safeguards this brings with it).

The following is extremely distressing.

Recently a Canadian couple were found guilty when they left their toddler to die of meningitis while treating him with essence of garlic and similar stupidities. The court description of the child's last days as he dies with no medical treatment or palliative care is harrowing.

An Australian woman is also currently being prosecuted and her child has been removed from her care after she left her child's eczema untreated by proper medicine and relied on a naturopath's advice. The child's skin condition deteriorated so gravely that it became life threatening.

Some parents are also beginning to be prosecuted when their unvaccinated children have contracted preventable diseases, but don't get me on that.

The same principle of neglect for failing to seek appropriate medical care would apply to animals although practically no one would have the time or money to prosecute for this.

 

[ycbm]

Booboos the RSPCA in the UK regularly prosecutes people for failing to obtain medical treatment for their animals. What they can't prosecute is someone whose VET is failing to provide medical treatment for their animals, which is why the BVA stance on vets providing homeopathy is so appalling.

 

[tallyho!]

I actually meant exactly what YCBM stated. I have been presented with patients who have been treated with homeopathic remedies, in some cases this treatment has been allowed to persist for too long a period of time. When these homeopathic rememdies do not work, and I have been asked to try and treat a condition, I have often been left with a problem that is far more difficult to deal with. I have lost a horse who had a nasty wound over a tendon. Rather than call the vet, the horse was treated homeopathically for three weeks. By the time I got to see the leg, the infection had spread throughout the entire leg and the animal was unable to be saved with conventional medicines.

I apologise, I read it wrong.

 

[Booboos]

Booboos the RSPCA in the UK regularly prosecutes people for failing to obtain medical treatment for their animals. What they can't prosecute is someone whose VET is failing to provide medical treatment for their animals, which is why the BVA stance on vets providing homeopathy is so appalling.

Thanks ycbm, I didn't realize that. What a mess!