Introduction
Herbal and supplement aisles abound in supermarkets and local health food stores nationwide, providing evidence of the booming market for “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) products. In 1997, retail sales of bottled herbs at neighborhood pharmacies alone.
Sixty per cent of doctors’ surgeries in Scotland prescribe homeopathic or herbal remedies, according to a study of nearly two million patients, published in the December issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
Researchers from the University of Aberdeen analysed official prescribing data from 2003-4, covering 1.9 million patients from 323 practices.
Their findings have led them to call for a critical review of homeopathic and herbal prescribing in the UK National Health Service, particularly the high levels given to babies and children under 16.
The research team discovered that:
* 49 per cent of practices prescribed a total of 193 different homeopathic remedies and 32 per cent prescribed 17 different herbal remedies.
* Five per cent of the practices included in the study prescribed 50 per cent of the remedies and accounted for 46 per cent of the patients receiving them.
* 4160 patients (2.2 per 1000 registered patients) were prescribed at least one homeopathic remedy during the study period. 73 per cent were female and the average age of patients was 47.
* Children under 12 months were most likely to be prescribed a homeopathic or herbal remedy (9.5 per 1000 children in that age group), followed by adults aged 81-90 (4.5 per 1000). 16 per cent of homeopathic prescribing was to children under 16.
* 361 patients were prescribed at least one herbal remedy during the study period (0.2 per 1000 registered patients) and 12 per cent of these were children under 16 years old. 72 per cent of prescriptions were issued to females and the average age was 61.
* Doctors who prescribed patients a homeopathic remedy also prescribed them a median of four conventional medicines during the study period. This figure went up to five for people prescribed herbal remedies.
* Four per cent of patients prescribed a herbal remedy were, at the same time, prescribed conventional medication that has been documented to interact with herbal treatments.
* The top five prescribed homeopathic remedies were Arnica montana (for injury, bruising), Rhus toxicodendron (joint symptoms, headache), Cuprum metallicum (cramp, poor circulation) Pulsatilla (PMT, menopausal symptoms, breast feeding problems) and Sepia (PMT, menopausal symptoms, fatigue).
* The top five prescribed herbal remedies were: Gentian (poor appetite, digestive problems), Cranberry (urinary tract infection), Digestodoron (indigestion, heartburn, constipation), Evening primrose (PMT) and Laxadoron (constipation).
“Our study shows that a substantial number of Scottish family doctors prescribe homeopathic and herbal remedies” says co-author Dr James McLay from the University’s Department of Medicine and Therapeutics.
“This level of prescribing raises important questions about homeopathic and herbal provision in the UK’s National Health Service
“The major problem with homeopathic preparations is the lack of scientific evidence that they are effective.”
“Given the rise of evidence-based medicine and the trend toward prescribing guidance in the UK, should therapies with no convincing positive clinical trial evidence be prescribed and funded by the health service”
“Or are proponents of such remedies correct in stating that the difficulties inherent in trialling such therapies make evidence irrelevant.”
“Whatever the arguments, our study shows an apparent acceptance of homeopathic and herbal medicine within primary care, including extensive use in children and young babies. We believe that these findings underline the need for a critical review of this prescribing trend.”
“The research by the University of Aberdeen adds an important dimension to the ongoing debate about homeopathic remedies, as it shows what is actually happening at grass roots in Scottish general practice” adds Dr Jeffrey Aronson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal and Reader in Clinical Pharmacology at Oxford University.
“In September 2006 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) introduced new rules to regulate homeopathic medicines, allowing manufacturers to specify the ailments for which they can be used.”
“This move has been criticised by a number of leading UK scientific institutions, who argue that homeopathic medicines should not be allowed to make ‘unsubstantiated health claims’ and that the policy is damaging to patients’ best interests.”
“We hope that this paper will further inform the debate, as it provides clear evidence on prescribing patterns within the NHS and raises a number of important issues, particularly about prescribing homeopathic and herbal remedies to children.”
Watch the video related to pharmacy journal
Toview entire program, visit www.lawjournaltv.com. Check us out for the latest legal trends, find an attorney in dozens of practice areas, or find out if the program is available in your area. Has the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) become little more than a rubber stamp for pharmaceutical companies or will new changes provide a check and balance on the industry? According to a Washington Post assessment of a recent study, “the federal system for approving and regulating drugs is in …
Help answer the question about pharmacy journal
Do people realize how much money we could save on healthcare if we would reform the way we license doctors?Sorry about the length… I promise it is worth the read!
***********************************************
Besides paying some of the highest prices for health care, we have the dubious distinction of having the most heavily regulated healthcare system in the world. In no other country on earth are doctors and hospitals subjected to as many oversight and enforcement agencies, bureaus and commissions. Rules, regulations, and laws are duplicated, redundant, multiplied, magnified, and contradictory. Laws and regulations covering doctors and hospitals plus all the other parts of our healthcare system now account for over half of all the words, sentences, and paragraphs in our entire body of law.
If regulations could make a healthcare system work better, ours would surely be perfect. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Even those who believe that only government regulation can assure quality health care should face this fact. More laws and regulations are not going to fix our system. If we are truly concerned about the high cost of health care, if we really desire greater safety and higher quality, then we must undertake a dispassionate analysis of the current mess. If we wish to begin effective treatment of our healthcare system, we must first make an accurate diagnosis….
We have to go very far back to the first meeting of what would become the American Medical Association. This meeting was held in New York City in 1846. Twenty-nine allopathic doctors (MDs) attended the meeting. They wanted to establish a monopoly over health care in the United States for those doctors that practiced higher quality medicine, such as themselves. They felt there were too many different kinds of doctors practicing too many questionable forms of medicine. They wanted only doctors that conformed to their brand of medicine to be allowed to practice. They wished to set up their association as a medical elite and obtain a government-enforced monopoly over health care in the United States.
The following year the AMA was officially launched. Members' efforts were at first slow to yield results. One of their first successes was in getting the exclusive right to positions in the federal government. Then, around 1870, the AMA began to find success at setting up medical boards in each state…
Soon after the medical monopoly was formed it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well organized and funded nationwide purge of all non-MDs was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the twentieth century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab.
Whether the object of destruction by the medical monopoly be homeopaths, midwives, chiropractors, or internet prescribers, the purge is conducted in the same manner. No scientific proof or research data is offered to discredit these practitioners. The entire approach is one of character assassination directed at their profession.
On one occasion the medical monopoly did try to behave "scientifically," but this approach backfired: They tried to show that obstetricians achieved a lower infant mortality rate than did midwives, but when the data was compiled it showed the reverse was true—midwives had the better record. The medical monopoly quickly abandoned this approach and returned to their proven method of buying lawmakers and writing nasty unsubstantiated accusations in their journals. It seems the public always falls for propaganda that promises greater consumer safety…
We should strongly consider abolishing state medical boards. Do we really need an additional and separate secret police for doctors? If we elect to keep the state medical board system, then governors should not be allowed to appoint doctors to medical boards or pharmacists to boards of pharmacy. This is like putting the foxes in charge of henhouse security! If these are supposed to be consumer protection agencies, then staff them with consumers. The ideal board member is the owner-operator of a small business. Such boards could consult anyone they wish for technical or professional advice.
I am sure that the Federal Trade Commission has looked at this, probably more than once. The legal problem is that the AMA does not directly intervene in the marketplace. The medical monopoly is cleverly divided up into numerous components with legal separations that make it nearly impossible to mount an effective antitrust case. Th
The AMA makes sure that it stays at arms length from the state medical boards and even has the Federation of State Medical Boards in between. The communication, cooperation, and even conspiratorial planning between the components of the medical monopoly are unquestionable, but such contact is always couched in terms of protecting the public.
If, however, the state medical board system were abolished, or disempowered, the medical monopoly would suffer a fatal blow. Cut off the small head of a giant rattlesnake and the huge body of the snake is rendered harmless. The beneficial effect of such action to healthcare consumers, American workers, and the economy would be enormous and immediate. Less appreciated would be an even more important effect: The breakup of the medical monopoly would go a long way toward taking American medicine out of its current political orientation and back into its proper scientific orientation.
http://mises.org/story/1749
I can't even imagine how far "innovative doctors" could lower prices for their patients if they were only allowed to do so.
I am in Medical School and would love to see the changes made to the system that the article above speaks of.
About Author
You can read more review in Metrovillez like this Men’s Health Review , Women’s Health Review , Skin Care Review , Weight Loss Review . Pharmacy Review