So I got a reply from Ms Thornberry. Here are the salient bits:
I can see why the Select Committee reached the decision it did ... but I still feel that there should be some room for other complementary therapies, including homeopathy.
I should stress that those sentences are from the beginning and end of her letter, not the same sentence, or even the same paragraph. The notable argument in the filling in between these two contradictory slices of information is that I don't disagree with her on the perceived benefits of seeing a homeopath, which she considers an important point.
I think she was concentrating on my second paragraph,
That people are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths is undeniable. The stronger claim that people get better after visiting homeopaths is also undeniable.
and not on the sentence in bold in the final paragraph,
the positive effects of homeopathy are not being ignored.
Either way, here is my reply in full.
Next time, my first ever letter to our Liberal Democrat candidate, in view of updating her page on sceptical-voter.org.
Dear Ms Thornberry,
It seems I’m not doing a good job of explaining myself. Please excuse any ranting in what follows; I’m afraid I feel pretty strongly about this issue.
If you can see why people think it is wrong to provide complementary therapies on the NHS, then why do you feel there should still be some room for them? If I understand you correctly, it is because of “the perceived benefits of seeing a homeopath for some people with long-term conditions”.
You are correct that I acknowledge a perceived benefit in homeopathic treatment. But I very strongly disagree that that benefit is a reason to encourage or explore its use. ALL un-harmful interventions have the SAME perceived benefit – the placebo effect. Some of those interventions have other benefits; the government agrees that homeopathy is not one of them. If I sat and chatted with a patient with chronic back-pain for an hour or so and then prescribed a lengthy treatment of soaking their back in tepid salt water and continuing consultation, they would perceive a benefit. I am not a doctor and to say that this chatting-and-tepid-water treatment should be investigated by the NHS is ridiculous – just as it is ridiculous to continue to put time and effort into homeopathy, which has the SAME effect.
I am strongly against the government providing a placebo treatment, like homeopathy, on the NHS – they have rules about this sort of thing, rules that say things like ‘don’t provide placebos, they’re deceitful and unreliable’.
I agree that more time and effort should be put into ‘talking’ treatments; I do not agree, in fact I find it morally abhorrent, that they should be presented as anything other than ‘talking’ treatments. To dress up extremely valuable and effective face-to-face contact as a complementary consultation resulting in the prescription of placebo is not only wrong in my view, but also in the eyes of medical ethicists, philosophers, scientists and many a rational human being.
It is called LYING.
Homeopathic treatments misrepresent the facts and have no benefit beyond just simply talking to the person. While it is true that ‘just simply talking to the person’ is worthwhile and that more emphasis should be put on those therapies, we should not and must not deceive patients.
I hope that I am closer to showing you why homeopathy, along with all the other treatments that show no benefit beyond placebo, should not be investigated or provided by the NHS; because providing placebos is lying and providing a talking service that is presented as anything else is lying.
Yours,
&c.
