Actually, yes, unless physical harm is involved. Homeopathic treatment is often give hand in hand with conventional medicine these days and I assume, whatever your religious view, you don't object to praying?
But I imagine you're not suggesting this treatment, being developed by qualified doctors in the US, falls into these categories?
Until proven, with peer-reviewed data, double-blind testing and all the rest, such a treatment has EXACTLY the same status as prayer and homeopathy, yes. That's how science works.Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Ah, ok, I had been trying to be fair. It's clear you don't have a clue of the scientific or moral issues involved.
That's pretty rich from someone who suggests homeopathy is in any way a valid form of complementary medicine (as opposed to the horseshīt it demonstrably is) and that the NHS is happy to let save-able kids die just to save them a bit of hassle and a few quid.
Nope. You are suggesting that. All I did was to say, check it for yourself, that the NHS is happy to condone homeopathy when it chooses to.
I stand by the second part of your statement because that is the effect whether it is their intent or not. The kid will die and the NHS will save itself hassle and a few quid.
The existence of homeopathy anywhere near the NHS is a national disgrace and due almost entirely to that renowned gobshīte the Prince of Wales. I would agree that their readiness to countenance such nonsense does undermine their reputation for making dispassionate judgments based on hard, clinical data. However, that is not the fault of the individuals involved in this decision, most of whom I don't imagine like homeopathy any more than I do.
Intent and effect are two very different things. The intent was to achieve the best possible level of care for this child given his condition. The effect is that the NHS has had to go to court at great public expense to defend its its primacy in such decision-making. The fight was over an important and compassionate principle and was - I would suggest - a lot more hassle and more expensive than letting the poor child be used as a guinea pig.
The outcome is that the boy will die. The boy was always going to die, though.
No compassion was involved. Only an infringement of the ultimate civil liberty, the right to try and save your life by whatever means possible. The intent was to stop the child from having potential life-saving treatment. If this line was taken with every new treatment we'd still be chewing leaves every time we had a headache.
You do not know if the boy would have lived or died with the experimental treatment. You cannot know, neither can I. It might have worked or it might have helped to improve the treatment for others, that is how science works.
The money arguement doesn't work, the NHS already refuse some drugs if they see them as being too expensive for the treatment concerned.
Doesn't the poor lad need help liviung at the moment? The treatment that they were originally offering wouldn't cure him it would just let him live longer (if it even works)
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
No, it is how it is supposed to work. Or at least how medical science is supposed to work. Plenty of other factors get in the way. You are coming a little close to suggesting that something only works once science says it does.
Does marijuana have any positive health benefits? Did it have these fifty years ago when it was an evil drug, frying your brain?
Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just not as good looking. ****s.
The scientific method as I've described it is the reason we are where we are today. It keeps us reasonably safe from poison, unwanted side effects and quackery. It is the means by which we sort anecdote and coincidence from fact.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote