This does not mean that Swedish doctors are allowed to be as anti-scientific as they are in some other European countries and actually prescribe such things as medicine (partly tax-financed, even!).
What it means is that in this case the suggestion to also use non-medicine didn't put the patient in any danger because the patient was also given actual treatment. That it took a court to decide this shows that it isn't a trivial matter.
I think this sets a bad precedence as from now on, how can we know that if doctors recommend a non-prescription substance, like vitamins which are OK to recommend, that it really is something which will help us? To me, it's not enough that it's something which is harmless in itself, as there's alway a risk patients will think it helps and thus not use what does help. And it costs money as well. (Not that I've ever understood how you can make money selling homeopathic preparations, since when you've sold something that means the recipient can dilute it and have a life time supply of even more "powerful" stuff.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment