Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is very good news that a Dutch appeal court has ordered the
prosecution of two doctors and a faith healer over their treatment of
Sylvia Millecam, who received misleading medical advice and died from
breast cancer. She was told that she did not have cancer and
unconventional therapy was recommended.
The etymology of this topic is interesting. In the outspoken 19th.
century, the proponents of unproven therapies spoke of "miracle cures" and
the opponents roundly denounced "quacks" and "fraudsters". In more recent
and more litigious times, proponents spoke of "alternative therapies" and
opponents referred to "unproven remedies". The term "alternative" therapy
carries a legal risk, because it implies parity with conventional
treatments. The more cautious term "complementary medicine" is safer from
a legal point of view, because it does not imply that conventional
treatment is to be replaced. As an extreme example, at one time the
proponents of the useless and toxic anticancer agent laetrile promoted it
as a "nutritional supplement" thus representing it as not being a drug and
not subject to legislation governing pharmaceuticals.
The Dutch Medical Association (DMA) is to be applauded for its strict
new rules governing doctors who practise alternative treatments. Doctors
must adhere to the best available scientific proof, which if properly
enforced will mean that most alternative therapies, including homeopathy,
cannot be used at all. The DMA's definition of "harm to a patient" is
excellent: it prohibits giving false information, raising false hopes, and
advising against treatment that is generally accepted within the medical
profession. I suggest a further proviso: all alternative treatments must
by law be free of charges. That would probably kill alternative therapies
outright and save many patients from grievous harm.
Our own General Medical Council (GMC) should take a stand firmly with
the Dutch Association against Quackery and their Society of Sceptics. It
is certain that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) would
back the GMC.
Three cheers for the Dutch Association against Quackery!
It is very good news that a Dutch appeal court has ordered the prosecution of two doctors and a faith healer over their treatment of Sylvia Millecam, who received misleading medical advice and died from breast cancer. She was told that she did not have cancer and unconventional therapy was recommended.
The etymology of this topic is interesting. In the outspoken 19th. century, the proponents of unproven therapies spoke of "miracle cures" and the opponents roundly denounced "quacks" and "fraudsters". In more recent and more litigious times, proponents spoke of "alternative therapies" and opponents referred to "unproven remedies". The term "alternative" therapy carries a legal risk, because it implies parity with conventional treatments. The more cautious term "complementary medicine" is safer from a legal point of view, because it does not imply that conventional treatment is to be replaced. As an extreme example, at one time the proponents of the useless and toxic anticancer agent laetrile promoted it as a "nutritional supplement" thus representing it as not being a drug and not subject to legislation governing pharmaceuticals.
The Dutch Medical Association (DMA) is to be applauded for its strict new rules governing doctors who practise alternative treatments. Doctors must adhere to the best available scientific proof, which if properly enforced will mean that most alternative therapies, including homeopathy, cannot be used at all. The DMA's definition of "harm to a patient" is excellent: it prohibits giving false information, raising false hopes, and advising against treatment that is generally accepted within the medical profession. I suggest a further proviso: all alternative treatments must by law be free of charges. That would probably kill alternative therapies outright and save many patients from grievous harm.
Our own General Medical Council (GMC) should take a stand firmly with the Dutch Association against Quackery and their Society of Sceptics. It is certain that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) would back the GMC.
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests