NHS Lothian has decided to withdraw funding for homeopathic remedies, following a public consultation. The current service provides more than 1,000 appointments for patients each year, including more than 100 people referred by other health boards.
The health board said the decision reflected the results of a public consultation, which showed most people were against spending nearly £250,000 a year on homeopathy because of a lack of scientific evidence that it works. This view is challenged by British Homeopathic Association who said said, “The health board has been predisposed to withdrawing the service from the outset of its farcical consultation process, with many patients unaware it was taking place. It was a consultation which failed to listen to actual patient feedback in the form of general correspondence and feedback at public meetings, instead concentrating only on the flawed online survey, which was hijacked by people outside Lothian who campaign against homeopathy. Consequently, the survey’s results are skewed and unrepresentative of the local population.”
SHA Scotland gave space to both sides of the argument in the latest edition of our policy journal.
The health board said the decision reflected the results of a public consultation, which showed most people were against spending nearly £250,000 a year on homeopathy because of a lack of scientific evidence that it works. This view is challenged by British Homeopathic Association who said said, “The health board has been predisposed to withdrawing the service from the outset of its farcical consultation process, with many patients unaware it was taking place. It was a consultation which failed to listen to actual patient feedback in the form of general correspondence and feedback at public meetings, instead concentrating only on the flawed online survey, which was hijacked by people outside Lothian who campaign against homeopathy. Consequently, the survey’s results are skewed and unrepresentative of the local population.”
SHA Scotland gave space to both sides of the argument in the latest edition of our policy journal.
No comments:
Post a Comment