UK government double-speak

Asolepius

Graduate Poster
Asolepius
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
1,150
I just saw this debate, in which Lord Taverne made a valiant effort. What can we do with this government? It is incorrect for Lord Warner to imply that clinical decisions are entirely devolved to clinicians and primary care trusts, when the government directly funds homeopathic hospitals. They are deciding up front that this rubbish should be available. It is also untrue to say that efficacy and effectiveness are matters for NICE alone, when the government persistently refuses to refer any CAM therapies to NICE. Basically (and I know this directly), NICE is awaiting the call from the government, because it has no authority to take any initiatives itself. Lord Warner has been less than direct in letters to me when I have pressed him on this point. What is he thinking of? On the one hand he continues to allow millions to be spent on homeopathy, while on the other admitting that it does nothing and thus is not allowed to claim any efficacy in its labelling. Does he have two heads which don't talk to each other?
 
How many votes are there in getting rid of homeopathy on the NHS? Almost certinaly a negative number.
 
Oh, I heard that on Today in Parliament when it happened. Unfortunately it ended with a bit of a capitulation. Some people do try, but then the impulse for compromise and agreement seems to get them in a parasitic embrace.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Oh, I heard that on Today in Parliament when it happened. Unfortunately it ended with a bit of a capitulation. Some people do try, but then the impulse for compromise and agreement seems to get them in a parasitic embrace.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

The lords is meant to compromise and agreement for the most part. Unseemly slugging it out is generaly left to the commons.
 
Did you look at the next page? I'm very disappointed with Robert Winston, who I thought was more of a sceptic.
 
No, I hadn't seen the next page. And, on what Winston said, certainly, the national homeopathic hospital is, like any other hospital, justified in carrying out proper medicine. The question is, is it justified in perpetrating quackery, even if it is "only a small part of its practice".

At least the minister got one thing right:
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure I am competent to respond to that question.
Click to expand...
But why did he only give this response to one of the questions?
 
If asked "Why does the government permit pi to be an irrational number?" the answer would be of the form:
"pi was permitted to be irrational under the previous administration".

To many politicians, not only would this be a sensible and adequate answer, it would be a sensible and adequate question.

Why do IQs and "A " level results get higher every year, yet the intelligence of politicians remains so flat? Perhaps we must wait for the indigo kids to join the ...dash it- what party would they join, I wonder?
 
Soapy Sam, may I steal those first two sentences as a sig? They are the funny.
 
From Page 2 of the article:
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that science is not a fixed discipline, and that there may be things about homeopathy that we do not understand yet? I remember my consultant telling me one day that he did not understand how paracetamol worked, yet that is prescribed regularly under the National Health Service. If homeopathy does not work, could the Minister explain how my goats think it works?
​
Good God! :rolleyes:

I hope everyone who opposes homeopathy has taken into account the Countess of Mar's goats' opinions on the matter into consideration.

I doubt that NICE will be asked to evaluate homeopathy. They will obviously conclude that it doesn't work and this would force the government to justify its continuing funding for the homeopathic hospitals. Something I'm sure they wish to avoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom