A big topic in New Zealand recently has been little Liam, the boy with the neuroblastoma whose parents decided not to continue his conventional chemotherapy. Their decision triggered court orders requiring him to undergo the rest of his course of treatment-this being deemed to be his best chance of cure, slim as that may be. The family went into hiding and Liam received several types of “alternative” treatment, including homoeopathy.
I have been asked several times for my personal view on Liam’s parents’ decision, and if homoeopathy could cure him. My view, my own, not the official stance of the Homoeopathic Society, is that a great deal more thought has to go into the choice of an alternative treatment than was apparent in this case. If we define alternative medicine as meaning as good as, if not better than, conventional therapy then it seems to me that Liam did not get that, but unproven, even discredited, treatments.
When people like Liam’s parents, or adults with cancer, come to see me I endeavour to make then think of the quality of the course of treatment they plan to pursue. Some treatments are unproven (maybe dangerous), some may be useful only if carried out exactly in their original form (Gerson diet), but the question must always be, “Are you sure this therapy is better than you will get at the hospital?” Where I am unsure any treatment I can offer or suggest would be better I recommend simultaneous conventional and other therapies. Homceopathy can greatly reduce side-effects in almost all cases, and despite some claims to the contrary can act curatively during or after chemotherapy.
Oh, how I wish people with interesting homœopathic experiences would write to Homœopathica so that these may be shared with others. This issue’s article on Vermiculitum, for instance, could be followed up in the next issue with some Kiwi cases . . . but will anyone send them in? (And, yes, you do get paid for writing to Homœopathica, too).
Bruce Barwell