Pills versus Plants!

[Namyeknom]

This morning it was reported in the UK that group of doctors has written to NHS trusts critising the rise in NHS funded alternative/complementary/homeopathic treatments. At a time when the NHS is facing funding problems (although that does apply to virtually any point in its history ), and new drugs are unavailable and require lengthy periods of testing, they claim alternative treatments are paid for and require less exhaustive testing, while having little or no evidence to back up their effectiveness.

BBC's Coverage

So whats your views? Do you think alternative treatments have definite effects? Or is it a load of quack?

And should the NHS (or, to open the question to the world, should an individuals health iinsurance) cover the costs of these treatments? Or should the individual have to provide for them?

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Some alternative treatments do work, some don't Same thing with regular medical treatments.

 

[Byardkuria]

From a US standpoint, two of the main issues here are -

1. The medical industry is very heavily regulated and overseen. The alternative health industry, not so much. Efficacy studies, while a matter of course for medical products, are not required for alternative methods. One result of permitting payment for said alternative methods is insurance companies distributing money for treatments that have no non-anecdotal record of having improved patient conditions.

2. Same as above, but from a safety standpoint. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of medical products are monitored very closely - I seem to recall (and I could be imagining this) a case a few years back where an analysis of an herbal remedy demonstrated very low levels of effective ingredients, and tremendously high levels of heavy metals from the processing of the herbs in question. WIll paying for a similar remedy only lead to increased costs as well, when you factor in the chelation to remove whatever toxins might sneak in alongside the active ingredients?


Now, I will be the first to admit I am very heavily biased against alternative medicine. I was an EMT, and have worked in hospitals most of my adult life. Having seen the dead revived via chemical resuscitation, and having seen people kill themselves with alternative remedies while refusing medical treatment for their illnesses, I have very little respect or expectation of function for alternative therapies.

I have seen people get better from alternative therapies. But I've also given someone 10 mL of saline, told them it was morphine, and watched them fall asleep.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Most health insurance policies sold in the US have a blanket exclusion for experimental drugs and therapies. If it hasn't been proven effective, it isn't covered. Now an individul, organization or employer can buy a plan that doesn't include that exclusion, but it IS expensive. So the bottom line question is, do we want to pay more for heaalth care coverage?

Similarly, in the UK and other countries with nationalized health care, do you want to pay more taxes?