- Email: [email protected]
Homoeopathy waives the rules
Comment
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10
EM-DAT. Disaster of the week: week 12. April 22–April 28, 2010: China (P Rep), flooding in a coal mine, Wangjialing (Shanxi). http://www.emdat. be/disaster-week (accessed May 3, 2010). Anon. Death toll rises to 36 in north China colliery flood; investigation launched. Xinhua News April 13, 2010. http://news.xinhuanet.com/ english2010/china/2010-04/13/c_13248692.htm (accessed April 22, 2010). Hirschberg S, Burgherr P, Spiekerman G, Burgherr C, Cheng L. China energy technology program: comparative assessment of severe accidents in the Chinese energy sector. March, 2003. http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_ Report/CETP_RA_Report.pdf (accessed April 17, 2010). Sanmiquel L, Freijo M, Edo J, Rossell JM. Analysis of work related accidents in the Spanish mining sector from 1982–2006. J Safety Res 2010; 41: 1–7. Molé DM. Events associated with structural collapse/crashing/crushing. In: Ciottone G, ed. Mining accidents: disaster medicine. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, 2006: 853–56. Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 7–17. Elklit A. The aftermath of an industrial disaster. Acta Psychiat Scand 1997; 392 (suppl): 1–25. Brexton JJ, Valla JP, Lambert J. Industrial disaster and mental health of children and their parents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Pscyhiatry 1993; 32: 438–45. Weeks JL. Occupational health and safety regulation in the coal mining industry: public health at the workplace. Annu Rev Public Health 1991; 12: 195–207.
11 12
13 14
15 16
17
18 19
Page K. Blood on the coal: the effect of organizational size and differentiation on coal mine accidents. J Safety Res 2009; 40: 85–95. Pringle T, Frost S. “The absence of rigor and the failure of implementation”: occupational health and safety in China. Int J Occup Environ Health 2003; 9: 309–16. Wang S. Regulating death at coalmines: changing mode of governance in China. J Contemp China 2006; 15: 1–30. Shi X. Have government regulations improved workplace safety? A test of the asynchronous regulatory effects in China’s coal industry, 1995–2006. J Safety Res 2009; 40: 207–13. Lei S, Dai T, Gunson AJ. Small-scale mining in China: assessing recent advances in the policy and regulatory framework. Resources Policy 2009; 34: 150–57. WHO. Mental health in emergencies: mental and social aspects of health of populations exposed to extreme stressors. 2003. http://www.who.int/ mental_health/media/en/640.pdf (accessed May 3, 2010). Maiti J, Chatterjee S, Bangdiwala SI. Determinants of work injuries in mines—an application of structural equation modelling. Inj Control Saf Promot 2004; 11: 29–37. Uth H. Trends in major industrial accidents in Germany. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 69–73. Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 7–17.
Homoeopathy waives the rules Evidence-free politics was recently on display when the UK’s Department of Health rejected a call by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to stop funding the use of homoeopathy in the National Health Service (NHS).1 This it is claimed will emancipate patients to indulge in choice, even though “His [the Secretary of State for Health] position remains that the evidence of efficacy and the scientific basis of homeopathy is highly questionable”.1 Using this kind of logic, why not offer astrology on the NHS to help women decide when to induce labour? It beggars belief that a modern NHS that prides itself on evidence-based medicine should fly in the face of the Science and Technology Committee, which concluded that homoeopathy is nothing other than an elaborate placebo and “involves deceiving the patient every time it is prescribed”.2 Responding to the Committee, Health Minister Anne Milton said: “We believe in patients being able to make informed choices about their treatment, which includes complementary or alternative treatments such as homeopathy”.1 So there you have it: the UK Government supports alternative medicine that by its very nature is nearly all an evidence-free zone. So at a time of financial crisis, Health Minister Andrew Lansley has pledged to continue spending more than £4 million a year to capture the support of a vocal minority. My group has just described a www.thelancet.com Vol 376 August 21, 2010
new technique for delivering intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer that will save women the 6 weeks of traipsing back and forward to the radiotherapy centre.3 The sum of money to be spent on homoeopathy over a couple of years could open up this service to all the women in England and Wales who need it, while eventually saving the exchequer about £15 million a year. What’s the betting that the introduction of this service will have to wait the approval of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) while homoeopathy continues to be allowed to creep under that hurdle? As it transpires the Department of Health refuses to ask NICE to investigate homoeopathy.4 Shame on you, Health Minister. Michael Baum The Clinical Trials Group, Royal Free and UCL Medical School, Centre for Clinical Science and Technology, London N19 5LW, UK [email protected] I declare that I have no conflicts of interest. 1
2 3
4
Department of Health. Government response to the Science and Technology Committee report ‘Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy’. July 26, 2010. http:// www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/ @ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_117811.pdf (accessed July 29, 2010). Kmietowicz Z. NHS should stop funding homoeopathy, MPs say. BMJ 2010; 340: c1091. Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 91–102. Anon. Discussions with Department of Health on homeopathy. http:// www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_with_department_of_h (accessed Aug 4, 2010).
577
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10
EM-DAT. Disaster of the week: week 12. April 22–April 28, 2010: China (P Rep), flooding in a coal mine, Wangjialing (Shanxi). http://www.emdat. be/disaster-week (accessed May 3, 2010). Anon. Death toll rises to 36 in north China colliery flood; investigation launched. Xinhua News April 13, 2010. http://news.xinhuanet.com/ english2010/china/2010-04/13/c_13248692.htm (accessed April 22, 2010). Hirschberg S, Burgherr P, Spiekerman G, Burgherr C, Cheng L. China energy technology program: comparative assessment of severe accidents in the Chinese energy sector. March, 2003. http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_ Report/CETP_RA_Report.pdf (accessed April 17, 2010). Sanmiquel L, Freijo M, Edo J, Rossell JM. Analysis of work related accidents in the Spanish mining sector from 1982–2006. J Safety Res 2010; 41: 1–7. Molé DM. Events associated with structural collapse/crashing/crushing. In: Ciottone G, ed. Mining accidents: disaster medicine. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, 2006: 853–56. Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 7–17. Elklit A. The aftermath of an industrial disaster. Acta Psychiat Scand 1997; 392 (suppl): 1–25. Brexton JJ, Valla JP, Lambert J. Industrial disaster and mental health of children and their parents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Pscyhiatry 1993; 32: 438–45. Weeks JL. Occupational health and safety regulation in the coal mining industry: public health at the workplace. Annu Rev Public Health 1991; 12: 195–207.
11 12
13 14
15 16
17
18 19
Page K. Blood on the coal: the effect of organizational size and differentiation on coal mine accidents. J Safety Res 2009; 40: 85–95. Pringle T, Frost S. “The absence of rigor and the failure of implementation”: occupational health and safety in China. Int J Occup Environ Health 2003; 9: 309–16. Wang S. Regulating death at coalmines: changing mode of governance in China. J Contemp China 2006; 15: 1–30. Shi X. Have government regulations improved workplace safety? A test of the asynchronous regulatory effects in China’s coal industry, 1995–2006. J Safety Res 2009; 40: 207–13. Lei S, Dai T, Gunson AJ. Small-scale mining in China: assessing recent advances in the policy and regulatory framework. Resources Policy 2009; 34: 150–57. WHO. Mental health in emergencies: mental and social aspects of health of populations exposed to extreme stressors. 2003. http://www.who.int/ mental_health/media/en/640.pdf (accessed May 3, 2010). Maiti J, Chatterjee S, Bangdiwala SI. Determinants of work injuries in mines—an application of structural equation modelling. Inj Control Saf Promot 2004; 11: 29–37. Uth H. Trends in major industrial accidents in Germany. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 69–73. Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999; 12: 7–17.
Homoeopathy waives the rules Evidence-free politics was recently on display when the UK’s Department of Health rejected a call by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to stop funding the use of homoeopathy in the National Health Service (NHS).1 This it is claimed will emancipate patients to indulge in choice, even though “His [the Secretary of State for Health] position remains that the evidence of efficacy and the scientific basis of homeopathy is highly questionable”.1 Using this kind of logic, why not offer astrology on the NHS to help women decide when to induce labour? It beggars belief that a modern NHS that prides itself on evidence-based medicine should fly in the face of the Science and Technology Committee, which concluded that homoeopathy is nothing other than an elaborate placebo and “involves deceiving the patient every time it is prescribed”.2 Responding to the Committee, Health Minister Anne Milton said: “We believe in patients being able to make informed choices about their treatment, which includes complementary or alternative treatments such as homeopathy”.1 So there you have it: the UK Government supports alternative medicine that by its very nature is nearly all an evidence-free zone. So at a time of financial crisis, Health Minister Andrew Lansley has pledged to continue spending more than £4 million a year to capture the support of a vocal minority. My group has just described a www.thelancet.com Vol 376 August 21, 2010
new technique for delivering intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer that will save women the 6 weeks of traipsing back and forward to the radiotherapy centre.3 The sum of money to be spent on homoeopathy over a couple of years could open up this service to all the women in England and Wales who need it, while eventually saving the exchequer about £15 million a year. What’s the betting that the introduction of this service will have to wait the approval of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) while homoeopathy continues to be allowed to creep under that hurdle? As it transpires the Department of Health refuses to ask NICE to investigate homoeopathy.4 Shame on you, Health Minister. Michael Baum The Clinical Trials Group, Royal Free and UCL Medical School, Centre for Clinical Science and Technology, London N19 5LW, UK [email protected] I declare that I have no conflicts of interest. 1
2 3
4
Department of Health. Government response to the Science and Technology Committee report ‘Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy’. July 26, 2010. http:// www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/ @ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_117811.pdf (accessed July 29, 2010). Kmietowicz Z. NHS should stop funding homoeopathy, MPs say. BMJ 2010; 340: c1091. Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 91–102. Anon. Discussions with Department of Health on homeopathy. http:// www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_with_department_of_h (accessed Aug 4, 2010).
577