The JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS (I did not even know such a journal existed) recently carried a most interesting article. Here is its abstract:
Consumers spend billions of dollars per year on homeopathic products. But there is powerful evidence that these products don’t work, i.e., they are not medically effective. Should homeopathic products be for sale? I give reason for thinking that the answer is ‘no.’ It has been suggested that the sale of homeopathic products involves deception. This might be so in some cases, but the problem is simpler: it is that these products don’t do what people buy them to do. More precisely, homeopathic products don’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition,” according to which products for sale in markets should satisfy the desires that people buy them to satisfy. I defend my view against objections, and conclude by acknowledging some of the practical difficulties of banning products people want to buy.
Allow me to introduce you to the logic of the author, Jeffrey Moriarty, in a little more detail. Essentially, he argues as follows:
- There is powerful evidence that homeopathic products don’t work, i.e., they are not medically effective. As we have discussed ad nauseam on my blog, this is certainly true.
- Thus they don’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition,” according to which the sale of a product should satisfy the desire(s) that people buy it to satisfy. Regulators prohibit retailers from advertising in ways that cause reasonable people to have materially false beliefs. It doesn’t matter to regulators whether advertisers cause false beliefs intentionally, and therefore deceive consumers, or unintentionally, and therefore merely mislead them. The point is to prevent consumers from acting on false information; however, they acquire it.
- If a product doesn’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition” condition, then there is a presumption against selling it. When people act on false information in markets, they are likely to make themselves worse off. We can understand how this works in terms of the satisfaction of desires. People engage in market exchanges in order to satisfy their desires. When their desires are satisfied as a result of market exchange, they are better off. You want a car that runs and seek to buy one. When you purchase the car, and it does run, you are better off. But when people act on false information, they are likely to frustrate rather than satisfy their desires. As a result, they are likely to be worse off. If the car you purchase doesn’t run, you are worse off. You spent your money on something you didn’t want.
- The products people buy should satisfy the desires they buy them to satisfy. This is the “desire-satisfaction condition” for market exchange. Transactions that reliably don’t result in desire-satisfaction are problematic. Because desires aren’t satisfied, this is evidence that value isn’t being created; the party whose desires are not satisfied is worse off. Since markets should make people better off, there is a presumption against allowing these transactions.
- The author states that his arguments also apply to other medicines and medical treatments that we have powerful reason to believe don’t work.
Jeffrey Moriatry concludes: When people purchase homeopathic products, they act on false information, and in doing so, fail to satisfy their desires. This is a sign that the purchase does not create value for them. Since market transactions should create value, there is a presumption in favor of prohibiting this transaction … we give states broad authority to decide what sorts of products can and can’t be sold, including medicines. This suggests that people generally think that banning the sale of certain products, despite the costs of doing so, is worth it. It also suggests that people think that the state uses its power competently and fairly—or at least that it doesn’t use it so incompetently and unfairly that it is better for the state not to have this power. The state would be doing nothing out of the ordinary in prohibiting the sale of homeopathic products.
_________________________
These arguments are interesting and relevant (sorry, if I have not represented them fully; I recommend reading the full article). Personally, I have never argued that the sales of homeopathics should be banned; I felt that good and responsible information is essential and would eventually reduce sales to an insignificant level. Yet, after reading this paper, I have to admit that its arguments make sense.
I’d love to hear what you think about them.
24 Responses to Against the Sale of Homeopathy (and Other Ineffective Medicines)
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Samuel Hahnemann was the greatest medical genius to have ever lived and I won’t be told otherwise.
Samuel Hahnemann was not the greatest medical genius to have ever lived.
THERE YOU ARE! YOU’VE BEEN TOLD OTHERWISE.
thank me later
Now that I’ve kicked off the conversation I will just say that Samuel Hahnemann did not want the apothecaries to make Homoeopathic medicines. He wanted Homoeopaths to make their own and to have medicines prescribed through proper case taking by a Homoeopath just as Homoeopathy should be practised. Hahnemann would not approve of the sale of Homoeopathics in pharmacies and self-prescribing.
seems to me that you could benefit from reading this book:
https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Edzard-Ernst/Homeopathy—The-Undiluted-Facts–Including-a-Comprehensive-A-Z-Lexicon/19719982
How many copies of this book were sold?
not sure; ask Springer
do you only read books that sell under 10000 copies?
I this case, I fear, my book might not be for you.
“do you only read books that sell under 10000 copies”
Not correct.
I prefer best sellers on the NY Times list or ones recommended by experts from their field.
This one.
https://amzn.in/d/6iTInSp
I know your book. You call scientific hypothesis and facts about possible mechanism of action “just theories”. For example, nanoparticle presence is NOT a hypothesis, is a fact confirmed by many researchers around the world. The hypothesis is, for example, how this nanoparticles can be formed during the mechanic process of dynamization.
Your book is a clear example of cherry picking bias. For example, why did you not mention the papers by Dr. Jerman, Demangeat and Mahata?
there are lots of things I don’t mention, e.g. because they are unconfirmed results – also known as theories.
“not confirmed”
Error!
https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(21)00707-6
This platform regularly criticises so called Alternative Medicine as being ineffective or even harmful. But wait … not only do MD’s & GP’s sometimes prescribe drugs that cause unwanted side effects (e.g. Statins), but they also prescribe ‘fake’ pills.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2013-03-21-97-uk-doctors-have-given-placebos-patients-least-once
what a magnificantly stupid comment!
As a professional Edzard, how about making a constructive, objective response to my post? It’s easy to throw insults at others – anyone can do that.
And up goes the inevitable straw man.
@Mike Grant
Ah, the good old flying carpet fallacy in disguise. So the fact that real doctors sometimes make mistakes or do stupid things (hey, they almost look like humans!) means that we should take ‘alternative medicine’ seriously?
The correct argument of course goes exactly the other way: when a real doctor prescribes ineffective or even fake medicines as a matter of routine, they should not be considered real doctors any more. Dispensing fake medicine should be stopped, not supported, regardless of who is dispensing it.
BTW, this also goes to show how strong the temptation is to just prescribe a placebo in order to get rid of patients with frequent but intractable complaints. In fact, I think that the UK is still pretty conservative in this respect. I recall some research saying that patients in many southern-European countries don’t feel taken seriously by their doctor if they are not given a prescription at each visit. And so a prescription is handed out in 98% of visits to the doctor’s office – which also explains the presence of pharmacies on virtually every street corner in those countries.
The story presented in that piece (from 2013) is not quite what you make it out to be, as the vast majority of the supposed prescription of placebo (not “fake pills”) is impure placebo, such as anti-biotics for viral illnesses or the use of not strictly necessary tests as re-assurance.
This is a long way from what homeopathy is: the giving of something with no active ingredient at all while claiming that there is still some magic effect of that, which is counter to all known physics, chemistry and biology.
“The point is to prevent consumers from acting on false information; however, they acquire it.”
Duh? ITYM “… on false information, however they acquire it”.
According to Browning (a nineteenth-century American physician), Hahnemann rebuked “allopathic” doctors who tried to discover the causes of diseases; he even claimed that when the symptoms were eliminated, the patient was cured, not the other way around. “If the totality of symptoms were the only guide for the physician in his selection of remedies, the art of medicine would be reduced to charming simplicity. Anatomy, physiology, and chemistry would not be the cornerstones of medical training, but, at most, useless achievements, while the study of pathology would be a tremendous waste of time,” Browning said.
It’s a good joke paper. The author only mentioned some papers authored by debunkers, included the ad hominem paper by Kevin Smith. The author did not mentioned the recent Umbrella Review by Hamre et al.
Mr. Ernst and their Friends. Can you provide me proper and the best evidence against Homeopathy? I’m waiting!
that’s awefully good to know!
start by reading this very blog.
Ok. I reviewed your blog. You have not any data against Hamre et al review. The only “analysis” comes from GWUP Network and I found the reply by Hamre et al.
The other possible proper data against Homeopathy comes from the “oficial veredicts”. Check this work (1 500 pages with mote than 2 800 references) analyzing in a chapter various of your reviews; main mataanalysis, and official veredicts.
https://www.academia.edu/118772108/Bolitas_y_chochitos_la_homeopat%C3%ADa_bajo_fuego_Disertaci%C3%B3n_antropol%C3%B3gica_epistemol%C3%B3gica_e_hist%C3%B3rica
This is a thesis but only show the index. Can you debunk this work?
This forum is very biased and rarely if ever comments on the errors and harm caused by CONVENTIONAL PHYSICIANS. The following report is an attempt to provide some balance, I recommend this BBC news item for your consideration:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgd0xpn253o
The forum is here to discuss AltMed, Mike. Please try to keep up.
As ever, the fact that aircraft sometimes crash does not validate a belief in magic carpets.