2009/4/15 Fr. Ivo C. de Souza icso...@bsnl.in wrote: Homeopathy, it is not enough to quote articles by people who do not know it at all. Let people who have been practising and experiencing it speak of their evidence.
Dear Fr Ivo, I agree with you that those 'who practice and experience Homeopathy should speak about it'. However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and evaluated by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. Or, is it being suggested that 'the evidence' should NOT be tested by scientific methods - but accepted on face value? I have no problem with patients and doctors having 'faith' in each other and in the treatment. However, there are issues of patient rights which involve those who put themselves out to be healers of diseases and conditions. These healers ought to be responsible for negligence and for un-verified claims. Here is a scenario, I'd like you to consider: [A]: Patient goes to a registered doctor with a pneumonia. Doctor says - take some Chicken Soup and some Ampicillin. You will be fine. Patient worsens and ends up losing 1/3 of his lung. It was an infection from an organism resistant to Ampicillin. Doctor is held responsible, has a claim against him settled by his Insurance company. The patient is compensated - The doctor loses his license. [B] [A]: Patient goes to a Homeopath or Ayurvedic doctor with a pneumonia. Doctor says - take some Vegeterian Soup and some 'powder'. You will be fine. Patient worsens and ends up losing 1/3 of his lung. It was an infection which did not respond to the 'powder' How exactly is the patient compensated for this?