Medicine current affairs

I can imagine homeopaths rejoicing

To be perfectly honest, I consider alternative or complementary 'medicine' to be charlatanism of the worst kind. My gut instinct would be to deny it any funding, although I understand that that's not my decision to make. I'll probably need to provide an argument in favour as well if it comes up in an interview, which I'm hoping it won't.

In light of this year's Nobel Prize winner (one of) for medicine, what are your opinions on traditional Chinese medicine? Should more research be put into all of the herbal remedies?

Why do you think patients might prefer alternative/complementary medicine? Is A/CM offered on the NHS? What's the research base behind, say, acupuncture?

As far as I know, the A/CM provision on the NHS is very limited and you're certainly likely to be put at the back of a very long queue of people who want these things done without paying for them.

I don't know of any research that has found conclusively that most A/CM actually works -- it seems to me that it works if the patient expects it to work (e.g. placebo effect). My mother, for instance, had some acupuncture done privately and it apparently relieved a lot of pain that wasn't helped by modern Western medicine.

Patients might prefer it because they've tried more conventional treatments and found that they haven't had the desired effect, because they've heard from others that a certain kind of A/CM works wonders or they have a doctor who, while being a scientist, swears that chiropractors are miracle workers as far as neck pain goes. Any number of reasons, really.

I think what you said is key. Understanding the reasons why some patients and doctors might lean towards A/CM is important. I've known a few very 'scientific' GPs who are trained in acupuncture; equally we've all had personal experiences of family/friends who have benefited from A/CM. The point is to not shut this down from the outset but think about why people might be inclined towards A/CM, and what might that health service offer patients which they cannot find normally.

Then there's the whole ethics of whether we should be offering a placebo treatment, as well as the inevitable funding dilemma. On the whole there will always be that minority of patients who do benefit from A/CM, and sometimes it can improve their lives drastically. The research-base is as you said inconclusive: I think the research on acupuncture has shown it to be more mixed than other forms of A/CM however.

When the tube drivers go on strike it costs us millions of pounds

People are attracted to other careers because they can become true specialists, and can focus on doing one thing. GPs need to be integrated more into the health system, allowed to become specialists, and possibly given 3 day - 2 day contracts of hospital and primary work.
Most GPs really enjoy what they do, the reason we don't have enough is because we need more of them than any other doctor - allowing opportunity to properly specialise may entice more into the trade.

I can imagine homeopaths rejoicing

I think you should be very careful about making the distinction between homeopathy vs complimentary and alternative medicines! The former contains active ingredients at such low concentrations, that they're practically pharmacologically inert, and thus inefficacious. The latter, however, do contain active ingredients at concentrations that are pharmacologically active, and the MHRA - the regulator of medicines and healthcare products in the UK - can, and does, issue licenses to herbal products, having been satisfied that they are safe and efficacious.

http://www.rpharms.com/pharmacy-practice-resource/homeopathic-and-herbal-products.asp

Fair point but just to clear something up about homeopathy -- most homeopathic medicines don't have anything in them. It's just water. The concentrations claimed are more or less impossible to achieve for the sort of people who sell these things (we're talking more dilute than a drop in the ocean). So yeah, homeopathic medicine is about as effective as drinking water to cure random illnesses. xD

Haha so true :P, anyone who has read 'Bad Science by Ben Goldacre' will know just how ridiculous homeopathy is, their positive effects are entirely based on placebos. And the research they claim to prove its success are falsified or exaggerated because of the way they do the scientific 'research' invalidly.

I haven't read it but I can guess. I've watched a documentary or two about it and done a bit of Internet research on it. I'll probably read up on before going to any interview though.

Fair point but just to clear something up about homeopathy -- most homeopathic medicines don't have anything in them. It's just water. The concentrations claimed are more or less impossible to achieve for the sort of people who sell these things (we're talking more dilute than a drop in the ocean). So yeah, homeopathic medicine is about as effective as drinking water to cure random illnesses. xD

One of Richard Dawkins' documentaries has a very interesting section on homeopathy. It's hilarious how much he detests it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Fair point but just to clear something up about homeopathy -- most homeopathic medicines don't have anything in them. It's just water. The concentrations claimed are more or less impossible to achieve for the sort of people who sell these things (we're talking more dilute than a drop in the ocean). So yeah, homeopathic medicine is about as effective as drinking water to cure random illnesses. xD

... the MHRA - the regulator of medicines and healthcare products in the UK - can, and does, issue licenses to herbal products, having been satisfied that they are safe and efficacious.

Efficacious? What level of efficacy do they have to prove?