Last year, I supported spoke in favour of a motion by a colleague, Dr Angela Alexander, to make the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) issue a position paper suggesting homeopathy does not fit within the professional healthcare role of the pharmacist.
Motion
It is the opinion of this meeting that the Society should produce a position statement stating that registration as a pharmacist and practice as a homeopath are not compatible, and that premises registered with the Society should not be used for the promotion of homeopathy.
Explanatory paragraph
The concept of homeopathy does not fit with our professional healthcare role. It raises both ethical and legal issues. If we are to be relied upon by the public for providing evidence based practice we cannot also be seen to be involved in any way in homeopathy. Involvement with homeopathy bring the profession into disrepute.
I was utterly dismayed to find that the motion was overwhelmingly lost. I suspect that a number of people in the room that day may wish to revisit their vote in the light of the 1023 campaign, which “aims to raise awareness about the reality of homeopathy”. Although 1023 are concerned about NHS provision of homeopathy, one of their first targets is a private business. Boots the Chemists sells homeopathic remedies in its stores, and 1023 hope to convince Boots to remove homeopathic remedies from their stores – thereby preventing their name lending credibility to such products. A mass overdose at 10:23am outside Boots stores is planned this Saturday. Boots have responded by stating that:
“The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain issues guidance to pharmacists on the correct selling of homoeopathy, which our pharmacists adhere to.”
The RPSGB homeopathy factsheet is on the web here [PDF]. It is appalling. The sheet is headed “Pharmacists – the scientists in the high street”. Here’s just some of the things wrong with it:
1. Although the guidance does note at one point that “there is no sound pharmacological or scientific basis for their activity”, there is lots of excuse making for homeopathy and a suggestion that it is effective – even resorting to stating “many anecdotal accounts of effectiveness.” No reference to Cochrane.
2. The document is written by Steven Kayne. Three out of the five further reading resources pharmacists are pointed to are by Steven Kayne. David Colquhoun notes Steven Kayne had written “Homeopathy is not very good for treating bacterial infections directly, apart from cystitis that often responds to a number of medicines, including Berberis or Cantharis”.
3. Steven Kayne’s family business is a homeopathic pharmacy. It is a registered pharmacy. Started in 1971, it is now run by his son. There is no conflict of interest statement in the factsheet to inform the reader of this.
4. The document was produced with the support of the British Homeopathic Association. What on earth is a supposedly scientific organisation doing collaborating with a homeopathy organisation? Amusingly, I suspect this was added to lend credibility to the document.
Embarrassingly, the fact sheet was commissioned by the Science Committee of the RPSGB. The science committee. Unbelievable.
Although I welcome the 1023 campaign to increase awareness of the ineffectiveness of homeopathy to the general public, the campaign does not go far enough. The problem is endemic within pharmacy. Homeopathy is not confined to Boots, other chains and independently owned pharmacies also sell homeopathy. While I can understand how targeting a well know high street name is a good media strategy, rather than a less well defined professional grouping, the problem of homeopathy extends to the highest levels within pharmacy. It isn’t that long ago that a homeopathy was the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and she stills lists that role on her holistic site (amongst other titles and roles) while supplying over 2000 homeopathic remedies, vitamins, and nutritional supplements.
When I speak to pharmacists, many of them are equally appalled. Indeed, there are plenty of people within the RPSGB building who supported the motion this post started with, and who were hoping (and even expected) the motion would be passed. Employee pharmacists do not have control over what is sold in the stores – although they can exercise their own professional judgment in how they inform the public. There are pharmacists who do not sell homeopathic remedies, I suppose public humiliation may reduce the number further. However, my hope is that the 1023 campaign will in future focus on the RPSGB’s lamentable stance towards homeopathic medicines, and that pharmacists will make a profession-wide stand against this anti-scientific quackery.
5 Comments
It appears that homeopathy works well when the best treatment is to do nothing. Otherwise it is rather poor.
I emailed the Chief Executive, Jeremy Holmes, about this exact matter. I think Boots are using the RSPGB to defend their practice of selling magic water, and to pass the responsibility on. You’ll note that Boots always mention the Society’s guidelines when pushed on the issue of homoeopathy.
Here’s Mr. Holmes’ response:
“Thank you for your email and I note your concern. However, the RPSGB does not have the power to restrict the sale in a pharmacy of any product, subject to it being sold under the appropriate licence (eg for alcohol or tobacco products).
Until such a time as the MHRA decides either to license or to outlaw the sale of homeopathic remedies, pharmacists have to make a professional judgement on what is in the best interests of the patient.
As I’m sure you know, there are those who argue strongly for the benefits that some patients feel they receive from complementary therapies and they continue to maintain the availability of these(including via the NHS). We will continue to monitor the situation.
Kind regards
Jeremy Holmes”
Can you explain to me why the Society would take the position that as long as people believe it works, there’s nothing they can do? I understand Boots’ deployment of this line, but I can’t figure out what the professional regulator gains from it. Surely it just undermines the role of the whole profession?
What’s the politics at work here?
Welcome back Anthony, I’d almost given up on the blog, and congratulations on your new appointment. As a jobbing GP I’ve never been clear on the incentives for employed pharmacists. If a customer asks about remedies and the pharmacist dissuades them from trying a non-proven (or proven-worthless) treatment, do they risk problems from the employer? – do they have sales targets etc. to encourage the sales of all the near useless cough remedies and herbal treatments, as well as the homeopathy?
Tony
Thanks Tony.
They are meant to act in the best interests of the patient, and are meant to resist commericial pressures from employers.
If pharmacists did come under pressure from employers in that way, one would hope they would stand up to it.
I’m ashamed how many big chains have shelves full of absoulute crap be it Boot’s and their homeopathy and De-tox products or Lloyds with their “shine the red light up your nose to stop hayfever” device.
I don’t stock homeopathy products for the obvious reason that the whole basis behing it is nonsense. I’ve also noticed a recent trend in explaining it using some quantum-electrodynamics type theory! We do get the odd Rx for it and I struggle hard not to roll my eyes as I refuse to dispense (technically againsy my NHC contract I think) and send the patient to Mr Boots who is sure to have that excellent homeopathic aconite on the shelf.
I noticed the RPSGB fact-sheet a while back and thought initially it was some sort of joke. Maybe our new professional body will have more balls?
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] mass overdose event, using homeopathic preparations, outside Boots the Chemists. I’ve already detailed my views on this with regard to the wider profession of pharmacy – it is not a problem only associated with [...]