Review of the Victorian Dept of Health’s ‘Better Health Channel’

At the conclusion of the inquest into the sad death of Penelope Dingle, the W.A. State Coroner made two recommendations.
I bring your attention to the first which reads;

“I recommend that the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health review the legislative framework relating to complimentary and alternative medicine practitioners and practices with a view to ensuring that there are no mixed messages provided to vulnerable patients and that science based medicine and alternative medicine are treated differently.”

We don’t have to look very far for an example of a State Department of Health sending mixed messages about ‘complimentary and alternative medicine’. I draw your attention to the Victorian State Governments Department of Health’s internet based information service, called the ‘Better Health Channel’. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/

The ‘Better Health Channel’ provides downloadable PDF ‘Fact Sheets’ not only relating to medical treatments but also pertaining to the following complementary and alternative health practices;
Acupuncture, Alexander Technique, Aromatherapy, Ayurveda, Bowen Therapy, Herbal Medicine, Homeopathy, Kinesiology, Massage, Meditation, Myotherapy, Naturopathy, Osteopathy, Reiki, Tai Chi and Yoga.

The ‘Better Heath Channel’ makes no clear distinction between evidence based medicine and sham medicine. In the list of Tests and Treatments, Aromatherapy appears between Appendicectomy and Arthroscopy.
The wording of the disclaimers is identical and directives to ‘Please seek advice from a qualified health care professional’ could be interpreted equally as referring to an aroma therapist or a medical doctor.

By speculating on unproven medical practices and elevating sham medicine to the same level as evidence based medicine, the Victorian Government is culpably negligent in its obligations to the health consumer.
This attitude is encouraging of a credulous public, leaving health consumers open to abuse by the many charlatans who are only too willing to make easy money by offering false hope to the desperately sick and vulnerable.

The ‘Better Health Channel’ carries the endorsements ‘approved by independent health and medical experts’ and ‘quality assured by Victorian Government Department of Health’.

These endorsements could lead the uninformed reader to reasonably draw the conclusion that these unproven medical practices actually work!

As an example of the presentation of ambiguous and misleading information, may I draw your attention to the Homeopathy ‘Fact Sheet’ provided by the Australian Homœopathic Association;

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Homeopathy?open

The ‘Fact Sheet’ makes at least twelve claims of homeopathy that have no scientific basis nor have these claimed properties been substantiated to modern scientific standards. The ‘Fact Sheet’ correctly states five times that homeopathy is based on belief, not science.

The ‘Law of Similars’ the cornerstone of homeopathic is not a demonstrable law of nature, like gravity nor is it a law as enacted by legislation.
It is more accurately described as the ‘Lore of Similars’ as in folk-lore.
Homeopathy lacks scientific grounding and repeated clinical studies, as confirmed by the Cochrane Collaboration Review, show that it lacks evidence of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.

Summary

By speculating on unproven medical practices and elevating sham medicine to the same level as evidence based medicine, the Victorian Government is culpably negligent in its obligations to the health consumer.
This attitude is encouraging of a credulous public, leaving health consumers open to abuse by the many charlatans who are only too willing to make easy money by offering false hope to the desperately sick and vulnerable.

I invite you to join me by signing the petition calling on the Dept. of Health to review the ‘Better Health Channel’ to ensure that the information provided is genuinely ‘Quality Assured’ by confining itself to science based medicine, supported by credible evidence of efficacy.

If the Dept of Health insists on including references to questionable, unproven, health treatments it should clearly indicate that those treatments are not grounded in science and have no evidence of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.