HOMEOPATHY

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (15:28): I rise today to speak about one of the so-called alternative therapies: homoeopathy. As Chair of the Social Development Committee's Inquiry into Bogus, Unregistered and Deregistered Health Practitioners I have a particular interest in this issue. The practice of homoeopathy was first developed by a German physician and chemist, Dr Samual Hahnemann, some 200 years ago, and is based on the theory of 'like cures like'. Homoeopathic remedies are created by diluting substances to an extreme degree.

The Australian Homoeopathic Association has admitted that if homoeopathic medicine is analysed a pharmacologist would say that it consists of water, ethanol and sugar. However, the association insists that these treatments stimulate the body's ability to fight infections, chronic illness, acute conditions and minor accidents. Homoeopaths claim to be able to assist with all manner of medical conditions including migraines, diarrhoea, influenza, asthma, sporting injuries, mumps, measles, toothaches, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dementia, depression, arthritis and burns, and some even claim that it helps AIDS. Many homoeopaths claim that they offer a valid alternative to vaccinations.

But how do scientists and medical doctors regard homoeopathy? The Medical Journal of Australia published on 19 April 2010 contains a report on homoeopathy by Professor Edzard Ernst, the UK's first professor of complementary medicine, based at the University of Exeter. Formerly a homoeopath and a clinical doctor, he has now built a reputation for successfully applying science to test the value of alternative therapies. Professor Ernst's report concluded that homoeopathic medicines have only a placebo effect and nothing more. Specifically, Professor Ernst found that the main assumptions of homeopathy are biologically implausible, and positive results were not able to be reproduced by other investigators.

Our own state president of the AMA, Dr Andrew Lavender, believes that there is no evidence that homeopathy works at all, and yet thousands of people are sucked into seeking these bogus treatments every year. Australian consumers spend over $2.3 billion a year on complementary medicines. The Australian Homeopathy Association estimates that 300,000 homeopathic consultations are made each year, and these figures are rising.

There are some academics, such as Adjunct Professor Ken Harvey of the School of Public Health at La Trobe University, who argue that, while there is indeed no scientific basis for homeopathy, there is perhaps no real harm in it either. If homeopaths can offer their clients a one hour consultation of good communication, empathy and placebo responses, can this not be classified as therapeutic and good for patients? Is there really any harm in homeopathy? The watery remedies are not themselves dangerous, as they contain little or no chemically active ingredients other than sugar. The harm lies in people using these remedies in place of conventional medications that are needed to treat or prevent serious disease.

One recent case highlights the potential dangers. Sydney baby, Gloria Thomas, died aged nine months after spending more than half of her life with eczema. The skin condition wore down her natural defences and left her severely malnourished and vulnerable to infections. Despite taking Gloria to various health professionals, her parents discarded conventional medication and pursued homeopathic remedies instead. Doctors who testified at her parents' trial believe that Gloria's short life was filled with chronic pain. A dermatologist told the jury that he could have treated Gloria's severe eczema with aggressive treatment that would have given Gloria significant relief within 24 hours. Instead, baby Gloria passed away from complications from an infection. Last year, Gloria's parents were found guilty of manslaughter by gross criminal negligence.

This is not an isolated case. Isabella Denley of Kew in Victoria died due to untreated epilepsy in 2002. Instead of giving Isabella prescribed medications, her parents treated her epilepsy with homeopathic treatments. I think it is time we get real and face the truth about homeopathy. While there may be no harm in the actual watery treatments, do taxpayers really want to be subsidising watery treatments and their placebo responses?

Currently, homeopathy is available through both the public and private health systems. While there are no specific Medicare item numbers relating to homeopathy, doctors have been known to work the public system by billing homeopathy under a non-specific item number. On 12 March of this year, The Australian newspaper named Southern Highlands GP Michael Cleary as a doctor who bills homeopathy treatments through Medicare. In the private system, most insurance companies provide extras cover for homeopaths. The taxpayer then funds these visits through the $4 billion a year private health insurance rebate.

Many public health experts are now urging the federal government to follow the UK's lead, where the Parliamentary Committee for Science and Technology recently concluded that homeopathy was simply a placebo and should not be funded by the NHS. I echo those calls and ask minister Roxon to immediately review all taxpayer funding of homeopathy.

Time expired.