Two new campaigns which call on the veterinary profession to unite against the practice of homeopathy have been launched this week.
Both campaigns raise concerns about the ethics of veterinary surgeons using irrational, unscientific and ineffective remedies to treat ill animals or in place of conventional vaccinations.
The Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine presents the case against homeopathy on a new microsite, and asks the profession to unite around a call for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to issue a public position statement that homeopathy is ineffective in animals, bringing it into line with the NHS, the findings of the British government's own review of homeopathy, and the BVA.
The campaign also asks that veterinary surgeons who prescribe homeopathic remedies be required to get owners to sign a consent form, prepared by the College, giving the College’s views on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy.
Lastly, the campaign asks that promotion or advertising of homeopathy by veterinary surgeons should abide by Advertising Standards Authority regulations and carry a statement from the College.
The Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine has been set up by a group of practitioners including the BSAVA Past President, Mike Jessop, Alex Gough, Martin Whitehead, Niall Taylor, Phil Hyde, Martin Atkinson and Brennen McKenzie, supported by VetSurgeon.org Editor, Arlo Guthrie. It also has the support of the noted author, academic and erstwhile dog owner, Professor Edzard Ernst.
Arlo said: "This is not just about the ethics of prescribing or tolerating the practice of prescribing water to animals that are dependent on us. There are 13m pet owning households in the UK. As well as visiting the vet, they will all be patients at some stage in their lives. So what you and the College say about homeopathy in animals has the potential to affect the choices they make for themselves too. Think how much money and false hope you could save them, and the consequent benefit to human welfare."
By complete coincidence, another campaign against veterinary homeopathy was launched last week. This one, by Danny Chambers MRCVS goes further, calling for a complete ban on the prescription of homeopathic remedies by veterinary surgeons. The petition has already gathered over 750 supporters.
Arlo said: "I think it’s important to say that the two petitions are not mutually exclusive. If you think both represent acceptable solutions, then sign both!"
Visit the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine here, and sign the petition here.
Sign Danny Chambers' petition on change.org here.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
I work at a university and I am not a homeopathist, in fact I have never prescribed a homeopathic product in my life. I cannot help but feel annoyed by the typical short-sighted 'jump on the bandwagon' nature of this campaign, actively run within our profession.
Can I just ask how many of the people who signed the petitions actually know what homeopathy really is...? I would not be surprised if quite a few think that it means something like 'plant medicine'. 'Homeopathy' actually takes the time to analyse the ailments, and their associations, of an animal in great detail and then tries to kick-start the animal's own defense system into dealing with the disease. Why is this deemed so bad...? We all have a lot to learn from the homeopathists. What is it that us 'conventional' vets have to offer instead? Apart from surgery we perform and the vaccines we administer (with vet homeopathists offer the same services of course) we almost entirely focus on medication suppressing SYMPTOMS - pain killers, steroids, antibiotics, you name it... We throw this at animals all day, during our 10-minute consults. Is this really something to be so desperately proud of, the desirable alternative to a homeopathist taking the time to really look at the animal in a holistic manner?
Sure, there are many questions surrounding homeopathy in terms of how it could possibly work - and no one claims to know the answer exactly. But does that mean that it therefore can't work? Can I just ask how many of the people who have signed the petitions have actually bothered to read any of the "non-existent evidence" for homeopathy? If they did, they would find meta-analyses presented in journals like the Lancet, providing the evidence for a measurable positive effect of homeopathy. Of course it doesn't work for all indications - and neither does conventional medicine of course - but there is good evidence to show that homeopathy works well for allergies and respiratory disease in particular. Advanced cancer is unlikely to be on the list of diseases that respond well to homeopathy - but I cannot imagine that vet homeopathists claim that is does. "Homeopathy does not work" is a broad, unhelpful, statement equally silly as, say, "Corticosteroids do work" - well that would depend on your definition of 'work', the cases you use it for, and the aims and objectives of the 'treatment'. Sure, there will be papers that show that homeopathy has a significant positive effect on certain diseases and other papers coming to other conclusions. But that is exactly the same for conventional medicine. If, say, I examine the evidence for positive effects of worming adult cows on their milk production then some papers find a positive effect whereas others don't. This is a problem relating to what we call 'confounders' and not something related to homeopathy.
What I fail to understand is why Guthrie et al choose to target homeopathists....? Do veterinary homeopathists really pose a significant threat to animal welfare? Can I ask those behind the campaigns to supply us with the EVIDENCE that homeopathy is bad for animal welfare? Are homeopathists significantly more likely to withhold pain relief when animals are suffering? Should we not be presented with that sort of evidence before we decide to back attempts to put pressure on the RCVS. Please make the effort to try to convince us with evidence instead of simply appealing to the sceptical FEELINGS of the masses.
And why do we not see similar campaigns trying to tackle the real issues threatening animal and human welfare? A far more significant, measurable, threat to animal welfare is the very random prescription of antibiotics in a 'it won't hurt and it may help' sort of way. Or the continuous supply of antibiotics to animals kept so close together that only antibiotics can save them from a certain infectious-disease-related death. The 'conventional medicine' we all appear to be so fond and proud of is creating massive problems. Why do I never hear any vets talk about this? How many vets do you think would sign a petition to stop the random, non-evidence-backed use of antibiotics in veterinary practice?
Let's try to learn from homeopathists instead of subscribing to the random bashing of their practices.