And further, you ask:

> Where are the ethical debates over its appropriate usage?

In classrooms; in journals; in private and professional discussions;
and occasionally in places such as this.
Not a lot, since there aren't many situations where any ethical issue
would arise--after all, we *do* believe that "homeopathy works", and we
do our best to *make* it work--but there are a few. E.g.,
- if the patient does not want to be helped (or in any case hasn't
asked for it) but is causing harm to self or others; e.g.
- if you have been unable to help thus far, and are wondering if
you're wasting the patient's money (been there from the patient's end;
I was and am happy with the way it was handled);
- if you recognize or suspect that the patient's needs go beyond what
you are able to meet, either medically, or as a homeopath, or in any
other way (numerous possibilities);
- When there is disagreement among the family as to whether or not
homeopathy should be used

These are a few of the ethical discussions I have been involved with,
in various quarters, at various times.

What sorts did you have in mind?

> Where are the organisations demonstrably ensuring that
> professional standards are upheld and dangerous actions and advice
> punished?

You mean other than threat of legal punishment if we say things we are
not legally "allowed" to say? (At least in the US that is an issue.)
Well, there are a number of professional organizations, different ones
in different countries. In the US, the unregulated status of
homeopathy (no protection for our name and no legal standing) has been
a double-edged sword; nice that we don't have to deal with too much
outside influence (other than the aforementioned need to be careful
about legal boundaries, as well as practical ones), but difficult in
that, e.g. if someone calls himself a "homeopath" but is not
*practicing* homeopathy, and perhaps giving inappropriate treatments,
*and has no connection* to any homeopathic community or professional
body, then the homeopathic community is unlikely to even know about it,
and in any case there is nothing we could do. In that way our good
name is pretty much at the mercy of public perception, and the overall
public's low level of understanding of homeopathy, and now this
"campaign of misinformation".

> If these concerns are addressed you may find that criticisms
> are reduced to a background grumble from sceptics like me rather than a
> stream of negative reports in the press.

Ah. Well, did any of that address them? What else would you like to
know, or what *proof* of the above would you like? Would you like to
see syllabus sheets from a school or few, demonstrating that "ethics"
*is* in the curriculum? Would you like photocopies of books in which
"ethical issues" are discussed? Would you like contact names for
professional organizations? (Frankly I'm hesitant on that one, but
actually it's information you could find easily enough anyway, if you
were interested.)

Why would you start slinging mud *before* finding out whether or not
(what you might consider) appropriate measures are being taken? That's
an odd way to go about defending anything, or learning anything...
>
> Perhaps the debate has become overly emotional and occasionally strays
> into the realm of the personal

;-)

> but if only the homeopathic profession was to apply the rigour of the
> scientific method to its studies then we might not be arguing like
> this.

Hmmm....
So you'll read some of those "positive" studies and then get back to us?
I don't want to waste my time digging out references *unless* you will
read them. But if you say you will read, then references to many
"positive" studies will be produced. Tho I still find it weird that
"studies" should bear more weight than 200 years of clinical
experience, not to mention specific current ones. (Sigh,
"anecdote"...)

However... Homeopathy is actually *based* on "the rigor of the
scientific method"--read about how our remedies are developed; how we
decide / discover what situations a remedy may be useful for; how
homeopathy was discovered; who its founder Hahnemann was, and what he
did before that point (MD and medical translator would be only a brief
beginning). Homeopathy is, believe it or not, pretty well *steeped* in
"the rigor of the scientific method"--just not the *applications* of
that method that you are accustomed to taking seriously.

You're as if wading into a Japanese teahouse and ranting about their
lack of "culture" because the guys aren't wearing ties. :-)
Cheers,
Shannon
>
>
> --
> gimpyblog
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
> View this thread: Again, Gimpy
>
>