The Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, the one based on a TransTasman treaty, is dead - which is a good thing.
However there was a part of it affecting homœopathy that, in another context, had some merit - a legal definition of a homœopathic medicine.
I am well aware that in the past I have been enthusiastic about the idea of having legislation establishing a clear legal status, and thus recognition, for homœopaths as soon as possible; however I have somewhat changed my mind on this, not the registration/recognition bit, but the time-frame for its implementation.
I now think the first step is to get a definition of a homœopathic medicine enshrined in law. A definition close to that proposed in the TP&M Bill would be acceptable, and this could lead to a reduction in the sale of “homœopathic” mixtures with expressed or implied specific therapeutic functions, and, I would hope, reduce too the number of people with electronic, etc, devices which are said to be able to make homœopathic medicines. Policing the “Hold this wire and I’ll give you a homœopathic” class of therapist will be a problem, admittedly, but their practice could be shown up as fraudulent with a publicity campaign, if not an episode of Target.
The next stage of the plan to get homœopathy a better status is an “only go to a reputable practitioner” campaign, and only after this appears to have achieved something should getting statutory pro¬tection for homœopaths be contemplated. Well, that’s my idea. What do you think?
Though we know plumbers and electricians are registered, did you know hairdressers and car repairers/mechanics can ply their trade without being part of a registration system? Deficiencies in their work are quite capable of doing as much harm as ever a bad homœopath could conjure.
* * *
A reader has asked the source of two provings published in Homœopathica; both that of Propolis and Magnesia fluoricum appeared in the proceedings of the International Homeopathic Medical League, 1987. Incidentally, guided by this proving I now find myself prescribing frequently the latter remedy.
To err is human
In compiling the opinion piece “Does Hahnemann’s § mean aphorism or article?” for the last issue the distinction between the contribution by George Dimitriadis and my own writing became blurred. It was he who drew our attention to the fact that Sir Francis Bacon called the passages in his Novum Organum aphorisms. In the edition I consulted they have the subheading Aphorisms to intro¬duce them. I regret our erudite correspondent’s points were not clearly attributed.
“There is no ‘I’ in team” rates as one of the silliest and most annoying buzz-phrases of the last decade. It invites retorts along the lines of “Good thing there’s no ‘U’ in it,” or “But there is in family, choir, society, fraternity, sorority, meeting and organisation.” However, please note that there is but one ‘I’ in olfaction, incorrectly spelled olifaction in a heading on page 9 in the April issue.
Bruce Barwell