A Gentle Ethical Defence of Homeopathy

David Levy, Ben Gadd, Ian Kerridge, Paul A. Komesaroff

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    9 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is “unethical.” They have also diminished patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics—one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation—a type of moral calculus—quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)203-209
    Number of pages7
    JournalJournal of Bioethical Inquiry
    Volume12
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2015

    Keywords

    • Ethics
    • Evidence
    • Evidence-based medicine (EBM)
    • Homeopathy
    • Outcomes
    • Patient values and preferences
    • Utilitarian

    Cite this