Yeah, except if you endorse homeopathy as a legitimate medical treatment, it pushes more people towards using alternative medicine when a real medical condition exists, which then sucks when they die.
I should add that in my case there were obvious physical symptoms that something was very wrong, so if the nurse thought I’d get the homeopathic treatment because I was part of the “worried well”, that reflects badly on her assessment, or suggests they use that treatment in cases where there’s actually a problem. In any case, I think the issue in this case may be that she was talking about an herbal remedy (ie actual drug/effective medication) and not homeopathy.
The UK Parliament’s Science and Technology committee came out against homeopathy as a placebo treatment recently:
*"Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important - as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS."*
150 years ago I’d much rather have had homeopathy tossed at me than what passed for standardized medicine, but these days? No thanks.
I have an aunt who is a fairly big believer. I don’t say anything about it. At least it’s harmless for her as she isn’t the sort who avoids conventional treatments altogether, for her or her various dogs over the years.
I am all for stuff that works. I see no way homeopathy could work. I don’t get it.
I’m a big believer in disease prevention, and so I drink lots of homeopathic water from my cold water taps.
It’s very good, there are many many diseases that I have not contracted, and given the few colds and sniffles I have had, well it prevented them from becoing worse, and lets face it, something is always going to sneak under the rader of that homeopathic radar, and I can be completely content in the certain knowledge that it has prevented me getting millions of condtions, some of which have yet to be discovered.
Time out. “For that they’ll tellyou to get…” Why is she telling you this? If you need medication, someone who can proscribe medication should be telling you this. If she is allowed to give you advice, why is she referring to what “they” will tell you? Who are “they”? Was that the words used, or are you paraphrasing? Can you elaborate?
Again, I have to reiterate, something is fishy. Either she should be giving you medical advice, which then she should know and not just be referring to the internet, or else she shouldn’t be giving you medical advice.
Yes, nursing in the US (and I can only assume elsewhere) has become infiltrated with woo. Thereputic Touch is taught and promoted in US nursing schools. The theory seems to be to promote the value and treatment ability of nurses to increase their stature, and promote “women’s ideas” into health care.
Nurses aren’t the only culprits. There are plenty of doctors who soak up and spew a bit of woo. Some of it is trying to appease their customer base, some of them have a genuine interest in the stuff themselves. Whatever. But medical schools don’t promote these things, unlike nursing school.
Joey P said:
It’s possible that since he is not familiar with Simply Sleep, he is concerned there may be other additives or ingredients. It appears Simply Sleep is aimed as an OTC sleep aid rather than as an antihistimine, which is why he might be leery. I imagine he wouldn’t have complained so hard if you said you’d take the generic (store brand, etc). If you had explained to me[sup]1[/sup] that it was just diphenhydramine HCL 25 mg, then I would probably not have been too insistent, just mentioned the possibility of other ingredients and my concern and been happy you were trying to be informed about your meds.
JFLuvly said:
First off, natural remedies in themselves tend to have actual ingredients, like herbs. That in itself is a pretty big difference between naturopathic and homeopathic[sup]2[/sup] remedies.
Second, while some ingredients used in natural remedies have ingredients that have an actual effect on the condition for which they are taken, natural remedies tend to lack scientific study to determine if they really are effective, and what proper dosing is, and what side effects there are. And yes, natural remedies have side effects, too. If they can have real effects, they can have side effects. Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean it’s safe. Aresenic and lead are natural. Rattlesnake venom is natural. Poison ivy is natural. Furthermore, they tend to not have any controls on preparation - including dosing, consistency within the product, or quality and safety controls. Caveat emptor. That might be acceptable for a topical application, but I’d be even more leery over something for ingestion.
Third, the line between the two is kept pretty thin because both are practiced from the crowd of Alt Med - anything is acceptable as long as it doesn’t come from established medicine and Big Pharma. Naturopaths freely welcome homeopathy because “it doesn’t have side effects” and typically uses natural sources. Homeopathy has diverged from the original roots and has come to take in some inputs from natural and traditional “medicine”.
suranyi said:
I wouldn’t agree. I know, for example, that my brother is well aware - he mentioned he was taking “placebo” for his illness. (Why he prefers homeopathic stuff over conventional meds is a separate topic. I’m not sure I really know.)
LunaticFringette said:
I think the situation is fairly ambiguous what was happening. Why would the non-diagnosing nurse bring up “the internet”?
Oh come on, there are zero legal implications from an informal conversation on an internet message board from a patient about his exchange. It’s not like this is sworn testimony. It’s just a casual exchange - “Soandso told me…” Now a nurse might wish to be a bit more precise in his/her description of what occurred, mostly on a CYA, but even that is thin.
BigT siad:
There are “homeopathic” remedies using that as a buzzword to mean “natural, not FDA regulated, good for you” (e.g. Head On). Then there are “homeopathic” remedies that claim the active ingredients are 3 or 4 items listed at impossible doses, and then put “inactive” ingredients for base or filler that actually have some effect - e.g. the brandy in the sleep remedy.
[sup]1[/sup] I am not a doctor, so this is purely hypothetical.
[sup]2[/sup] Actual homeopathic substances, as opposed to things labeled homeopathic but that actually have some ingredients at some dosage level, and using “homeopathic” as a buzz word.
I wasn’t referring to anything being stated on a message board. I was referring to her/his practice of nursing. If **Senor Beef **followed the nurse’s “recommendations” and his ankle swelled to the size of a football and complications ensued, Senor Beef could sue the nurse for negligence/malpractice and the nurse would lose licensure for practicing outside the scope of the Nurse Practice Act. However, if the “recommendations” were being communicated as/from Dr.'s orders then the M.D. goes down instead of or in addition to the nurse. I’m not pulling this outta my arse.. it’s the freakin law.
Promoting “women’s ideas” into health care? I don’t even know where to begin with this one
I do apologize for my poorly phrased “nurse recommends” title, I didn’t think it’d become an issue.
The exchange between the nurse and I was transcribed as best as I can recall it. She wasn’t recommending the treatment, just telling me what I’d probably get prescribed by the doctor, because that’s what usually happened with my type of injury. The “that’s what it says on the internet” line was a direct quote though and perhaps the strangest part of it.
There’s some truth to that. Homeopathy was probably a good idea when it was first proposed and the mainstream alternative was “heroic medicine”. Treating a patient with useless glasses of water was better than treating him with harmful semi-poisons.
Yeah, I was also wondering how it is possible for someone to knowingly take a placebo. Seems to be self-contradictory, unless you want to venture deep into the philosophy of knowledge itself. Perhaps this person believes in homeopathy but uses a “placebo” explanation to get pesky rational people off his case.
And I apologize for the hijack. It pains me to see stupid assigned to nursing when it’s a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.. we’ve got enough of the true stupid. “The internet” comment being a prime example.
The placebo effect can work even if you know you are taking a placebo. Weird but true.
OTOH my neuro ascribed as placebo effect, an unexpected but positive effect of a drug he prescribed for me. It wasn’t until I left his office that it occurred to me that was impossible, as the placebo effect can only produce effects the patient is expecting.
I have a question: if I “wave” my bottle of homeopathic medicine over a glass of water (then drink it)-will I get a better result?
It is like the old joke about how to make a super dry martini-pass the bottle of vermouth over the glass of gin-the few molecules of vermouth that land in the glass will be enough!
People often use ‘homeopathic’ as shorthand for ‘natural’ or ‘home remedy’ and I think that’s what this nurse was doing. There are a lot of herbs, etc that are effective treatments, aren’t diluted, and don’t have anything to do with true homeopathy (BS).
Yeah, I was also wondering how it is possible for someone to knowingly take a placebo. Seems to be self-contradictory, unless you want to venture deep into the philosophy of knowledge itself. Perhaps this person believes in homeopathy but uses a “placebo” explanation to get pesky rational people off his case.
