An argument in support of Homeopathy

Homeopathy has come under fire in recent times from people who call themselves “skeptics”. They claim that the methods used to create homeopathic medicines could not possibly result in an active ingredient being present in the medicines and therefore such medicines are worthless. It is claimed homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos.

Even if the preceding is true, there would still be value in homeopathic medicines. The reason for this is that homeopathics harness the power of belief (which gives rise to the placebo effect) in people who have faith in the efficiency of the medicine. In those with no such faith we would expect no effect, if the claims of the skeptics are true. Such people would not be drawn to homeopathic remedies. If it is believed homeopathic medicines will give the desired result with no negative side effects, then those who are able to harness the power of belief to heal their own body will receive a good result.

It may be said that if homeopathics only harness the power of belief then why can’t users just use their own minds to get well rather than relying on an outside agency such as homeopathic pills. Some may have the ability to go beyond using pills and the like but others clearly need the symbolism engendered in the “health giving pill”. If this works for them then this is to be respected.

Of course, it would also be claimed by “skeptics” that by using homeopathics the patient is denying themselves the use of other treatments that could be more effective and have proven themselves using the scientific method. But what this ignores is the fact that the majority of people who come to using homeopathics (and other “alternative” medicines) have already tried conventional treatments for their ailments and weren't pleased with the results. Another point is that people are drawn to homeopathics because they either believe in the medicine's effectiveness or because they wish to trial it to see what success they can have with it. Those who continue to use homeopathics are those who believe they achieve good results with them.

Another argument used by “skeptics” to condemn homeopathics is to say that it uses false advertising by classing homeopathics as “medicines” and claiming they “treat” certain health conditions. The problem is, if the label on homeopathics were to say “useless medicine” or “contains no active ingredient” then the ability of the homeopathic to elicit the placebo effect in receptive individuals would be reduced. As it is, those with an active interest in health matters would be aware of the online debate concerning homeopathics and other “alternative” health treatments. They would take this into account when deciding whether to purchase homeopathic remedies. Only a small proportion of people who operate on “blind faith” are likely to take any medicine without first researching it online. These are most likely the elderly, who are more likely to take conventional, “allopathic" medicines prescribed by a doctor.

So, to encapsulate, homeopathy offers apparently harmless medicines which are taken by people who either believe in their effectiveness through previous experience or by those who are trialing them to treat a condition which has likely proven unmanageable by other means. "Skeptics" seem to wish to have such medicines taken from the market, citing that such medicines make false claims and are in fact not medicines at all. Ultimately, the question comes down to the individual’s freedom to choose. Who would deny someone this?

Sharka Todd