Formal Minutes
Monday 8 February
2010
Members present:
Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair
| Mr Tim Boswell
Mr Ian Cawsey
Dr Evan Harris
| | Dr Doug Naysmith
Ian Stewart
|
1. Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy
The Committee considered this matter.
Draft Report (Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy),
proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from "That"
to the end of the question and add "this Committee declines
to read the report a second time because it contains an evaluation
of homeopathy which is outside the terms of reference of the inquiry
as published by the Committee on 20 October 2009 and instead decides
to write to the Government to call on it to fund a rigorous research
programme into homeopathy." instead thereof.—(Ian
Stewart.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1
Ian Stewart
| Noes, 3
Mr Ian Cawsey
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Doug Naysmith
|
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 76 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 77 read.
Question put That the paragraph stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 3
Mr Ian Cawsey
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Doug Naysmith
| Noes, 1
Ian Stewart
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 78 to 157 read and agreed to.
Summary brought up and read as follows:
This inquiry, our second Evidence Check, asks
whether the Government's policies on the provision of homeopathy
through the NHS and the licensing of homeopathic products by the
MHRA are evidence-based. It is not an evaluation of homeopathy
itself.
The Government does not consider that there is any
credible evidence of efficacy for homeopathy, which, we found,
to be an evidence-based view. That there is no plausible evidence
to show that homeopathy is efficacious but there is a body of
opinion that it is effective, means homeopathy fits the profile
of a placebo, or dummy, treatment. While acknowledging the lack
of evidence, the Government has not, however, based its policies
on homeopathy being a placebo. Indeed, the Government is content
to fence homeopathy off within the NHS and to place a "keep
out" notice on the gate. We cannot accept this approach to
the formulation or scrutiny of policy. Either homeopathy is an
evidence-based treatment subject to the same tests as conventional
treatments or it is a placebo and should therefore be subject
to NHS policy on placebos.
The problem is, however, that it appears the NHS
has no policy on placebos. The placebo effect is unreliable and
addresses symptoms not the causes of illness. The use of placebos
also poses serious ethical issues as it partly relies on deception
of patients. Speaking personally, the Minister for Health Services
considered the use of placebo treatments to be "unethical".
We share his misgivings, as would most patients if they knew that
the evidence showed, and the Government considered, homeopathy
to be a placebo treatment. We conclude that homeopathy should
therefore no longer be available on the NHS.
Similar considerations applied when we examined
the licensing of homeopathic products by the MHRA. Homeopathic
products are regulated through three licensing schemes, none of
which require evidence of clinical efficacy, yet two of the schemes
permit medical indications on the label. The product labelling
fails to inform the public that homeopathic products are sugar
pills containing no active ingredients. The licensing regimes
and deficient labelling lend a spurious medical legitimacy to
homeopathic products. We call for the MHRA to cease licensing
homeopathic products.
We conclude that the Government's policies on
the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and licensing of homeopathic
products are not evidence-based. Indeed the policies run counter
to the evidence.
Question put That the summary be added to the Report.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 1
Ian Stewart
| Noes, 3
Mr Ian Cawsey
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Doug Naysmith
|
Summary disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be
the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 3
Mr Ian Cawsey
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Doug Naysmith
| Noes, 1
Ian Stewart
|
Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee
to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the
House for printing with the Report.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 10 February at 9.00 am
| 
