Judge dismisses homeopathy challenge against NHS decision to stop funding unproven pills
Legal claim was denounced as 'costly and spurious' by health chief Simon Stevens
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A judge has dismissed a challenge by homeopathic groups against the NHS’ decision not to fund unproven pills through prescriptions.
The bid by the British Homeopathic Association (BHA) and others was ended by a High Court ruling.
It was welcomed by NHS England (NHSE) boss Simon Stevens who called the challenge “costly and spurious”.
In a statement following the decision the BHA claimed the health service had engaged in a “deliberate attempt” to “unfairly influence the public” during a consultation into ending funding for a number of prescription items including homeopathy.
The move was designed to save money by not funding remedies that could not be proven to work or can be bought over the counter, NHSE said.
The BHA’s argument the 2017 consultation and a press release accompanying it were biased and the conclusions pre-determined was rejected by Mr Justice Supperstone.
It had complained about a statement by Mr Stevens in the press release that homeopathy was “at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds”. The judge said this was “robust” but, taken as a whole, the document demonstrated NHSE was taking a provisional view on funding the remedies.
Another senior figure was also recorded as saying NHSE wanted to hear from “as many people and organisations as possible” – and the BHA’s own response was carefully considered and reviewed, the judge said.
He wrote in his full judgment: “In circumstances where NHSE was putting forward the proposal to consultees on the basis of an assessment of the evidence as to whether homeopathy actually works, I consider that NHSE was entitled to form a view on the state of the evidence before going out to consultation.
“It does not follow from that that NHSE had closed its mind to any further evidence that might be provided by consultees or that it would not objectively assess that evidence if it were received.”
He also said that “there is no evidence of bias or predetermination on NHSE’s part”, though BHA, in its later statement, accused the body of a “failure to genuinely engage with the public on important decisions about healthcare provision”. It said the judge’s decision was “astonishing”.
Mr Justice Supperstone also rejected the BHA’s complaint that the evidence cited by NHSE to show homeopathy did not work was too complicated for the public to understand.
The 2010 parliamentary report in question – which described the principle on which homeopathy is based as “scientifically implausible” – “sets out its conclusions and recommendations in clear terms”, he said.
He added: “It was made clear to consultees that the reason why NHSE was proposing to include homeopathy on the list of items that should not routinely be prescribed by GPs was the lack of robust evidence that it actually works.
“Consultees therefore knew that, if they opposed the proposal, they should point to evidence that homeopathy actually works, and they were afforded the opportunity to submit such evidence.
“The fact that the claimant [BHA] did exactly this indicates that certainly it had sufficient information to provide an informed response.”
Mr Justice Supperstone did not pass judgment on whether belief in homeopathy’s efficacy was legitimate, saying that to do so would be inappropriate.
Homeopaths claim that “like cures like”. Remedies are created by dissolving a material believed to cause a certain affliction in water, then diluting that solution many times past the point at which any molecules of the original substance remain. The weaker the solution, the more powerful the remedy, it is claimed.
During the process the water is knocked against a leather and horsehair surface, before a droplet is applied to plain tablets and they are packaged.
After reviewing 225 studies of homeopathy in 2015, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council said: “People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.”
There was “no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions”, the body concluded.
Dr Graham Jackson, the co-chairman of NHS Clinical Commissioners, welcomed the latest ruling.
He said: “It is important that we have an honest conversation with the public, patients and clinicians about what the NHS should and can provide with the constrained funds it has available.
“As a part of that, it is right that we review what is currently offered on NHS prescription so that we can prioritise our spending on those products that are the most clinically effective and provide the best outcomes for patients.“
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments