From what I’ve heard, in Germany and other places where homeopathy enjoys high status and professional recognition, doctors sometimes use it as a very convenient way to deal with hypochondriacs who pester them. Sounds to me like a win-win solution.
I still assume that doctors actually want to help people. (Despite reading the checklist book, and other stuff).
So if I have the choice between: World a) where doctors also do homeopathy, and b) where other ppl. do it, while doctors stay true to science. Than I would prefer a) because at least the people go to a somewhat competent person.
I still assume that doctors actually want to help people
Homeopathy is at best a placebo. It’s rare that there’s no better medical way to help someone. Your assumption is counter to the facts.
Certainly doctors want to help people—all else being equal. But if they practice homeopathy extensively, then they are prioritizing other things over helping people.
If the market condition (i.e. the patients’ opinions and desires) are such that they will not accept scientific medicine, and will only use homeopathy anyway, then I suggest then the best way to help people is for all doctors to publicly denounce homeopathy and thus convince at least some people to use better-than-placebo treatments instead.
Homeopathy is at best a placebo. It’s rare that there’s no better medical way to help someone.
I disagree—at least with the part about “it’s rare that there’s no better medical way to help people”. It’s depressingly common that there’s no better medical way to help people. Things like back pain, tiredness, and muscle aches—the commonest things for which people see doctors—can sometimes be traced to nice curable medical reasons, but very often as far as anyone knows they’re just there.
Robin Hanson has a theory—and I kind of agree with him—that homeopathy fills a useful niche. Placebos are pretty effective at curing these random (and sometimes imagined) aches and pains. But most places consider it illegal or unethical for doctors to directly prescribe a placebo. Right now a lot of doctors will just prescribe aspirin or paracetamol or something, but these are far from totally harmless and there are a lot of things you can’t trick patients into thinking aspirin is a cure for. So what would be really nice, is if there was a way doctors could give someone a totally harmless and very inexpensive substance like water and make the patient think it was going to cure everything and the kitchen sink, without directly lying or exposing themselves to malpractice allegations.
Where this stands or falls is whether or not it turns patients off real medicine and gets them to start wanting homeopathy for medically known, treatable diseases. Hopefully it won’t—there aren’t a lot of people who want homeopathic cancer treatment—but that would be the big risk.
You might implicitly assume that people make a conscious choice to go the unscientific route. That is not the case.
For a layperson there is no perceivable difference between a doctor and a homeopath. (Well. Maybe there is, but lets exaggerate that here.)
From the experience the homeopath might have more time to listen, while doctors often have a approach to treatment speed that reminds me of a fast food place.
If I were a doctor, than the idea to offer homeopathy, so that people at least come to me would make sense both money wise, and to get the effect that they are already at a doctors place for treatment with placebos for trivial stuff, while actual dangerous conditions get check out from a competent person.
Its a case of corrupting your integrity to some degree to get the message heard.
I considered to not go to doctors that offer homeopathy, but then decided against that due to this reasoning.
I considered to not go to doctors that offer homeopathy, but then decided against that due to this reasoning.
You could probably ask the doctor why they offer homeopathy, and base your decision on the sort of answer you get. “Because it’s an effective cure...” is straight out.
tl;dr—if doctors don’t denounce homeopaths, people will start going to “real” homeopaths and other alt-medicine people, and there is no practical limit to the lies and harm done by real homeopaths.
For a layperson there is no perceivable difference between a doctor and a homeopath.
That is so because doctors also offer homeopathy. If almost all doctors clearly denounced homeopathy, fewer people would choose to go to homeopaths, and these people would benefit from better treatment.
From the experience the homeopath might have more time to listen, while doctors often have a approach to treatment speed that reminds me of a fast food place.
This is a problem in its own right that should be solved by giving doctors incentives to listen to patients more. However, do you think that because doctors don’t listen enough, homeopaths produce better treatment (i.e. better medical outcomes)?
they are already at a doctors place for treatment with placebos for trivial stuff, while actual dangerous conditions get check out from a competent person.
Do you have evidence that this is the result produced?
What if the reverse happens? Because the doctors endorse homeopathy, patients start going to homeopaths instead of doctors. Homeopaths are better at selling themselves, because unlike doctors they can lie (“homeopathy is not a placebo and will cure your disease!”). They are also better at listening, can create a nicer (non-clinical) reception atmosphere, they can get more word-of-mough networking benefits, etc.
Patients can’t normally distinguish “trivial stuff” from dangerous conditions until it’s too late—even doctors sometimes get this wrong. The next logical step is for people to let homeopaths treat all the trivial stuff, and go to ER when something really bad happens.
Personal story: my mother is a doctor (geriatrician). When I was a teenager I had seasonal allergies and she insisted on sending me for weekly acupuncture. During the hour-long sessions I had to listen to the ramblings of the acupuncturist. He told me (completely seriously) that, although he personally didn’t have the skill, the people who taught him acupuncture in China could use it to cure my type 1 diabetes. He also once told me about someone who used various “alternative medicine” to eat only vine leaves for a year before dying.
When the acupuncture didn’t help me, my mother said that was my own fault because “I deliberately disbelieved the power of acupuncture and so the placebo effect couldn’t work on me”.
I perceive you as attacking me for having said position, but I am the wrong target.
I know homeopathy is BS, and I don’t use it or advocate it.
What I do understand is doctors who offer it for some reason or another, for the reasons listed above. What you claim as a result is sadly already happening. I have had people getting angry at me for clearly stating my view, and the reasons for it, on homeopathy. (I didn’t say BS, but one of the ppl. was a programmer, if that counts for something.)
Many folks do go to alternative treatments, and forgo doctors as long as possible. People have a weak opinion on the ‘school medicine’ (german term translation for the official medical knowledge and practice.) criticize it—sometimes justified. And use all kind of hyper-skeptical reasoning, that they do not apply to their current favorite. That is bad. And hopefully goes away.
Many still go the double route you listed.
And well, then we have the anti-vaccination front growing. It is bad, and sad, and useless stupidity.
Lets get angry together, and see what can be done about it.
Personal story: i did a lecture on skeptic thinking.
try i dumped everything i knew, and noticed how dealing with the H-topic tends to close people up.
try i cut out a lot, and left the H topic out. still didn’t work
I have no idea what I can do about it, and am basically resigning.
Or that they respond to market demand and don’t try to sneak any medical science in, based on the principle that the customer is always right.
From what I’ve heard, in Germany and other places where homeopathy enjoys high status and professional recognition, doctors sometimes use it as a very convenient way to deal with hypochondriacs who pester them. Sounds to me like a win-win solution.
I still assume that doctors actually want to help people. (Despite reading the checklist book, and other stuff). So if I have the choice between: World a) where doctors also do homeopathy, and b) where other ppl. do it, while doctors stay true to science. Than I would prefer a) because at least the people go to a somewhat competent person.
Homeopathy is at best a placebo. It’s rare that there’s no better medical way to help someone. Your assumption is counter to the facts.
Certainly doctors want to help people—all else being equal. But if they practice homeopathy extensively, then they are prioritizing other things over helping people.
If the market condition (i.e. the patients’ opinions and desires) are such that they will not accept scientific medicine, and will only use homeopathy anyway, then I suggest then the best way to help people is for all doctors to publicly denounce homeopathy and thus convince at least some people to use better-than-placebo treatments instead.
I disagree—at least with the part about “it’s rare that there’s no better medical way to help people”. It’s depressingly common that there’s no better medical way to help people. Things like back pain, tiredness, and muscle aches—the commonest things for which people see doctors—can sometimes be traced to nice curable medical reasons, but very often as far as anyone knows they’re just there.
Robin Hanson has a theory—and I kind of agree with him—that homeopathy fills a useful niche. Placebos are pretty effective at curing these random (and sometimes imagined) aches and pains. But most places consider it illegal or unethical for doctors to directly prescribe a placebo. Right now a lot of doctors will just prescribe aspirin or paracetamol or something, but these are far from totally harmless and there are a lot of things you can’t trick patients into thinking aspirin is a cure for. So what would be really nice, is if there was a way doctors could give someone a totally harmless and very inexpensive substance like water and make the patient think it was going to cure everything and the kitchen sink, without directly lying or exposing themselves to malpractice allegations.
Where this stands or falls is whether or not it turns patients off real medicine and gets them to start wanting homeopathy for medically known, treatable diseases. Hopefully it won’t—there aren’t a lot of people who want homeopathic cancer treatment—but that would be the big risk.
You might implicitly assume that people make a conscious choice to go the unscientific route. That is not the case. For a layperson there is no perceivable difference between a doctor and a homeopath. (Well. Maybe there is, but lets exaggerate that here.)
From the experience the homeopath might have more time to listen, while doctors often have a approach to treatment speed that reminds me of a fast food place. If I were a doctor, than the idea to offer homeopathy, so that people at least come to me would make sense both money wise, and to get the effect that they are already at a doctors place for treatment with placebos for trivial stuff, while actual dangerous conditions get check out from a competent person. Its a case of corrupting your integrity to some degree to get the message heard.
I considered to not go to doctors that offer homeopathy, but then decided against that due to this reasoning.
You could probably ask the doctor why they offer homeopathy, and base your decision on the sort of answer you get. “Because it’s an effective cure...” is straight out.
tl;dr—if doctors don’t denounce homeopaths, people will start going to “real” homeopaths and other alt-medicine people, and there is no practical limit to the lies and harm done by real homeopaths.
That is so because doctors also offer homeopathy. If almost all doctors clearly denounced homeopathy, fewer people would choose to go to homeopaths, and these people would benefit from better treatment.
This is a problem in its own right that should be solved by giving doctors incentives to listen to patients more. However, do you think that because doctors don’t listen enough, homeopaths produce better treatment (i.e. better medical outcomes)?
Do you have evidence that this is the result produced?
What if the reverse happens? Because the doctors endorse homeopathy, patients start going to homeopaths instead of doctors. Homeopaths are better at selling themselves, because unlike doctors they can lie (“homeopathy is not a placebo and will cure your disease!”). They are also better at listening, can create a nicer (non-clinical) reception atmosphere, they can get more word-of-mough networking benefits, etc.
Patients can’t normally distinguish “trivial stuff” from dangerous conditions until it’s too late—even doctors sometimes get this wrong. The next logical step is for people to let homeopaths treat all the trivial stuff, and go to ER when something really bad happens.
Personal story: my mother is a doctor (geriatrician). When I was a teenager I had seasonal allergies and she insisted on sending me for weekly acupuncture. During the hour-long sessions I had to listen to the ramblings of the acupuncturist. He told me (completely seriously) that, although he personally didn’t have the skill, the people who taught him acupuncture in China could use it to cure my type 1 diabetes. He also once told me about someone who used various “alternative medicine” to eat only vine leaves for a year before dying.
When the acupuncture didn’t help me, my mother said that was my own fault because “I deliberately disbelieved the power of acupuncture and so the placebo effect couldn’t work on me”.
Sorry about your experience.
I perceive you as attacking me for having said position, but I am the wrong target. I know homeopathy is BS, and I don’t use it or advocate it. What I do understand is doctors who offer it for some reason or another, for the reasons listed above. What you claim as a result is sadly already happening. I have had people getting angry at me for clearly stating my view, and the reasons for it, on homeopathy. (I didn’t say BS, but one of the ppl. was a programmer, if that counts for something.) Many folks do go to alternative treatments, and forgo doctors as long as possible. People have a weak opinion on the ‘school medicine’ (german term translation for the official medical knowledge and practice.) criticize it—sometimes justified. And use all kind of hyper-skeptical reasoning, that they do not apply to their current favorite. That is bad. And hopefully goes away. Many still go the double route you listed. And well, then we have the anti-vaccination front growing. It is bad, and sad, and useless stupidity. Lets get angry together, and see what can be done about it.
Personal story: i did a lecture on skeptic thinking.
try i dumped everything i knew, and noticed how dealing with the H-topic tends to close people up.
try i cut out a lot, and left the H topic out. still didn’t work
I have no idea what I can do about it, and am basically resigning.
I didn’t intend to attack you. Sorry I came across that way.