Something Thats Been Bugging Me

johnsix

You've probably notice that Ireland is swarming with Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
Regardless of whether they work or not.

they don't

1. We know most practitioners have no qualifications from any respected or accredited source or are in no way medically trained or licensed
2. We also know they claim to treat people who actually are ill and give medical advice.
What bugs me is: why exactly aren't they busted for practicing medicine without a license?

5uspect

Well for a start there are no side effects... or any effects really.

monkeyfudge

5uspect wrote: »

Well for a start there are no side effects... or any effects really.

There is if people use them and are under the belief that it's enough and don't get proper medical attention as a result.

johnsix

I'm sure a doctor giving you a treatment he knows doesn't work isn't exactly on the up and up either.

monkeyfudge

I actually can't find a GP in my area who doesn't also deliver alternative medicine.

They all do acupuncture and homeopathy as well.

Chiropractors are the worst though... they can really do some damage to you.

5uspect

monkeyfudge wrote: »

There is if people use them and are under the belief that it's enough and don't get proper medical attention as a result.

I fully agree with you. The most danger from these alternatives to medicine comes form the ignorance of those pushing and taking them.

johnsix

On that note: http://www.kcra.com/news/16602080/detail.html
I was more thinking more along the lines of the people who aren't actual doctors, but it is pretty scary how many GPs deal in the bull****.

monkeyfudge

I guess the GPs just see money that can be made. I suppose if they're offering it they'll also offer proper medical help if it's something serious as opposed to someone just going into one of these Dr. China places that are opening up everywhere.

Anyway.. it's not like western medicine doesn't play around with the placebo effect itself. Anti-depressants would be an example of drugs with very little chemical effectiveness.

(Oh and when they started playing dolphin sounds in the surgery that was when I had to finally move to a GP further from where I live)

johnsix

Thats the other thing that pisses me off "Its from ancient China so it must work." Same with the Native America stuff people are selling.
It not very far removed form "magic negro dust" in my opinion.

monkeyfudge

Cherokee Hair Tampons!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jfuPang3RM

johnsix

Exactly.
I'd love to see better regulation of this industry. And a bit of education wouldn't hurt, people really should know 3rd level reiki master does not equal an actual medical education.

Sapien

johnsix wrote: »

You've probably notice that Ireland is swarming with Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
Regardless of whether they work or not.

they don't

1. We know most practitioners have no qualifications from any respected or accredited source or are in no way medically trained or licensed
2. We also know they claim to treat people who actually are ill and give medical advice.
What bugs me is: why exactly aren't they busted for practicing medicine without a license?

I'd be interested to know what kinds of treatments you include in your

dismissal

. Few are more vituperative of, say, homeopathy than myself, but there are other treatments that many would see fit to curse in the same breath, which are far less deserving. Massage, for instance. Yoga. Meditation exercises. All dangerous quackery?

On the other hand - psychological counselling. Embraced by the mainstream, but with little evidence of therapeutic effectiveness. Should its practitioners be monitored, and sanctioned when they fail to heal, or when they replace proven medical or pharmaceutical therapies, or worsen a patient's condition?

johnsix

Sapien wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what kinds of treatments you include in your

dismissal

. Few are more vituperative of, say, homeopathy than myself, but there are other treatments that many would see fit to curse in the same breath, which are far less deserving. Massage, for instance. Yoga. Meditation exercises. All dangerous quackery?

My arguement isn't about what works and what doesn't (this time), but rather who is legally allowed give medical advice.
Yoga, Meditation etc can be theraputic, yes but not necessarily medical. But a good yoga teacher or masseuse would have the relevant qualifications or at the very least a decent amount of training.

Sapien wrote: »

On the other hand - psychological counselling. Embraced by the mainstream, but with little evidence of therapeutic effectiveness. Should its practitioners be monitored, and sanctioned when they fail to heal, or when they replace proven medical or pharmaceutical therapies, or worsen a patient's condition?

Again not about what does and doesn't work. Psychiatrists have qualifications and standards as well as years of training, not saying it isn't without it flaws. Psychiatrist have standard they can be held up to and held accountable for bad practice.

Sapien

johnsix wrote: »

My arguement isn't about what works and what doesn't (this time), but rather who is legally allowed give medical advice.
Yoga, Meditation etc can be theraputic, yes but not necessarily medical. But a good yoga teacher or masseuse would have the relevant qualifications or at the very least a decent amount of training.

Well then, of course, neither do acupuncturists nor homeopathists practice medicine. They offer supplementary/complementary medicines. I'm quite certain that if any such practitioner purported to be medically trained, and were found to be lying, they would be in a huge amount of trouble. Your question seems moot.

johnsix wrote: »

Again not about what does and doesn't work. Psychiatrists have qualifications and standards as well as years of training, not saying it isn't without it flaws. Psychiatrist have standard they can be held up to and held accountable for bad practice.

I mentioned psychologists. Psychiatrists are physicians, psychologists are not - so my question stands.

Gibs

Sapien wrote: »

On the other hand - psychological counselling. Embraced by the mainstream, but with little evidence of therapeutic effectiveness. Should its practitioners be monitored, and sanctioned when they fail to heal, or when they replace proven medical or pharmaceutical therapies, or worsen a patient's condition?

This is simply not accurate. There is overwhelming evidence in favour of both the efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy and psychological interventions delivered using a variety of approaches. The benefits of such interventions are considerably in excess of those provided by placebo. There are literally hundreds of well-controlled, well-designed, methodologically sound studies that consistently show the benefits of appropriate psychological interventions for the treatment of a wide array of presentations and conditions.

If you even do a cursory google you will find dozens of examples that demonstrate the robustness of this finding. Here's a 2007 Irish review of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Just click on the "download executive summary" to see the details.

Many of the most vociferous members of the Irish Skeptics are psychologists and it is disappointing to have a lazy dismissal of the value of psychological interventions made in this forum when there is so much good quality evidence that clearly and unambiguously supports the current use and further expansion of psychology/psychotherapy.

Mahatma coat

How coulds anyone claim that Meditation and Yoga have no medical or thereputical benefit?

I know someone who had a brain haemorage a few years ago, you go and tell them that they wasted their time learnin to walk as there would have been no way that a bit of Massage and a few exercises could have done anything for them.

not to come across all hippysh but the popwer of positive thought/hope is a powerful thing, granted false hope is equally as dangerous.

as for Holistic medicines, while I agree that the actual remedies they provide are mostly a load of bollox, they fill an important gap in many cases by virtue of the fact that they have the ability to spend more time on average with patients, therefore being able to relax the patient better and acquire a fuller medical history for the MD's

Mahatma coat

How coulds anyone claim that Meditation and Yoga have no medical or thereputical benefit?

I know someone who had a brain haemorage a few years ago, you go and tell them that they wasted their time learnin to walk as there would have been no way that a bit of Massage and a few exercises could have done anything for them.

not to come across all hippysh but the popwer of positive thought/hope is a powerful thing, granted false hope is equally as dangerous.

as for Holistic medicines, while I agree that the actual remedies they provide are mostly a load of bollox, they fill an important gap in many cases by virtue of the fact that they have the ability to spend more time on average with patients, therefore being able to relax the patient better and acquire a fuller medical history for the MD's

johnsix

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How coulds anyone claim that Meditation and Yoga have no medical or thereputical benefit?

They have no more benefit than anyother from of exercise.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for Holistic medicines, while I agree that the actual remedies they provide are mostly a load of bollox, they fill an important gap in many cases by virtue of the fact that they have the ability to spend more time on average with patients, therefore being able to relax the patient better and acquire a fuller medical history for the MD's

Thats the thing though they don't have the training or authority to actually get a persons medical history.

agrajag

Just in further support of psychologists, The Psychological Society of Ireland do attempt to regulate the profession, albeit in a non-statutory manner. See http://www.psihq.ie/about_overview.asp

Mahatma coat

johnsix wrote: »

They have no more benefit than anyother from of exercise.

if by exercise you mean regular if not regular daily workouts scheduled and monitored for changes, then, yeah, same diference

Thats the thing though they don't have the training or authority to actually get a persons medical history.

I'd be in favour of a type of, Wholistic Nursing discipline

johnsix

Would prefer a nurse trained and accredited in actual medicine myself.

Mahatma coat

what? like a Paramedic, all I'm sayin is that theres room in the industry for a lot of those people in the Quackery side of things to get involved in the nuts and bolts real medicine side of things where they would be able to greatly benifit REAL medical profesionals

johnsix

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what? like a Paramedic, all I'm sayin is that theres room in the industry for a lot of those people in the Quackery side of things to get involved in the nuts and bolts real medicine side of things where they would be able to greatly benifit REAL medical profesionals

What possible benefit can "quackery" give actual medicine?

Sapien

Gibs wrote: »

If you even do a cursory google you will find dozens of examples that demonstrate the robustness of this finding. Here's a 2007 Irish review of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Just click on the "download executive summary" to see the details.

The effects of psychotherapy are nearly
double those of placebos and the overall
magnitude of the effects of psychotherapy in alleviating
psychological disorders is similar to the overall
magnitude of the effect of medical procedures in
treating a wide variety of medical conditions.

The first part of that is quite clear. The second not so clear. Are we to conclude that the average effectiveness over placebo control for medical procedures is around double? That would surprise me, but then again, I have argued repeatedly that the point of the placebo effect has been massively missed. I would never deny that psychological counselling can help people, but then, homeopathy helps people.

Can you tell me how placebo is achieved in studies of effectiveness in psychotherapy?

About 1 in 10 clients deteriorate as a result of
psychotherapy.

Gibs wrote: »

Many of the most vociferous members of the Irish Skeptics are psychologists

Well that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I am a ceremonial magician, and a vociferous skeptic. Psychologists are useful in skepticism because they understand things like pareidolia and apophenia. It doesn't follow that psychotherapy is effective, or that pschology should be exempt from skepticism.

johnsix

Sapien wrote: »

homeopathy helps people.

No it doesn't, it doesn't do dick. There are much much better ways of giving people treatment than using bull****.

Sapien wrote: »

Well that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I am a ceremonial magician, and a vociferous skeptic. Psychologists are useful in skepticism because they understand things like pareidolia and apophenia. It doesn't follow that psychotherapy is effective, or that pschology should be exempt from skepticism.

Noone was implying that because some psychologicists are skeptical that means it is immune to skepticism.
Unlike magick and homeopathy there is evidence and experimental data to actually show the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

robindch

Sapien wrote: »

I would never deny that psychological counselling can help people, but then, homeopathy helps people.

It's quite probable that there are benefits to the extended, touchy-feely one-on-one in which alternative medical practitioners excel. At least, in the areas where placebos have been shown to be effective -- relief from pain, emotional issues and the like.

Homeopathy has never been demonstrated to have any consistent or reliable effects beyond those, to the extent that the Edzard Ernst of the University of Exeter (who holds one of the very few chairs of alternative medicine in an accredited university) has said that homeopathy is a "public health problem" and that "Homoeopathic claims are not benign, they are dangerous". More here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2141049/%27Homeopathy-putting-lives-at-risk-with-claims%27.html

Sapien

robindch wrote: »

It's quite probable that there are benefits to the extended, touchy-feely one-on-one in which alternative medical practitioners excel. At least, in the areas where placebos have been shown to be effective -- relief from pain, emotional issues and the like.

Homeopathy has never been demonstrated to have any consistent or reliable effects beyond those, to the extent that the Edzard Ernst of the University of Exeter (who holds one of the very few chairs of alternative medicine in an accredited university) has said that homeopathy is a "public health problem" and that "Homoeopathic claims are not benign, they are dangerous". More here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2141049/%27Homeopathy-putting-lives-at-risk-with-claims%27.html

I agree entirely. And what could be more touchy-feely, one-on-one than psychotherapy?

Sapien

johnsix wrote: »

No it doesn't, it doesn't do dick. There are much much better ways of giving people treatment than using bull****.


Noone was implying that because some psychologicists are skeptical that means it is immune to skepticism.
Unlike magick and homeopathy there is evidence and experimental data to actually show the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Hmm. I'm sensing the giddy zeal of new-found skepticism and the overriding need to demonstrate disdain for all things not-quite science. Take a breath.

johnsix

Sapien wrote: »

Hmm. I'm sensing the giddy zeal of new-found skepticism and the overriding need to demonstrate disdain for all things not-quite science. Take a breath.

And this is relevant how exactly?

Sapien

johnsix wrote: »

And this is relevant how exactly?

Perhaps fewer of the asterisks and a little more articulation of our points. You're not the only person capable of skeptical enquiry on these boards - you don't have to scream.

johnsix

Sapien wrote: »

Perhaps fewer of the asterisks and a little more articulation of our points. You're not the only person capable of skeptical enquiry on these boards - you don't have to scream.

Wow, that's condescending.
You're making quite a lot of assumptions.