The State Coroner has delivered his findings in the Penelope Dingle case. The homeopath involved, Francine Scrayen is described as
"was not a competent health professional" and had given "dangerous advice" to Mrs Dingle when treating her.
Dr Peter Dingle is described as
"a victim of his own misinformation" and had "no qualifications in health and wellness".
It is also recommended that the two doctors involved, William Barnes and Igor Tabrizian, be referred to the Medical Board of WA.
Mr Hope said Dr Barnes' suggestion Mrs Dingle use vitamin C and Carnivora to potentially stop the tumour growing and Dr Tabrizian's failure to examine her properly was enough reason to refer them to the board.
Despite this, the Coroner seems ambivalent about homeopathy.
Giving his recommendations, the coroner said homeopathic treatments should not be outlawed but nor should they be legitimised.
But he recommended federal and state health authorities review their legislation regarding complementary and alternative treatments.
This sounds like the recent UK decision that homeopathy should continue be supported precisely because it doesn't work. And despite the fact that
He said that if she had not spent a year seeking the advice of Mrs Scrayen rather than seeing a doctor, she may have survived.
Dr Peter Dingle is described as
ReplyDelete"a victim of his own misinformation" and had "no qualifications in health and wellness".
And yet as early as today, just two days after the coroner's findings, the Sunday Times is touting his next "medical" book on cholesterol.
Giving his recommendations, the coroner said homeopathic treatments should not be outlawed but nor should they be legitimised.
I think I pretty much predicted this in one of my earliest articles on the case. It's why I ultimately closed the blog. Even those who support us don't really support us.
This is just another case, like the TGA and HCCC rulings before it, where nothing useful will come of the tireless efforts of some people to seek justice in the health industry.
Put a useless "fuel-saving" device on the market and the government will ban it as a scam - but put lives at risk by selling hopeless promises of cures and the government is suddenly impotent.
Alt-med is a multi-billion dollar industry when you consider it in the wider context including books, magazines, TV and radio and community support for it is widespread. That's a hell of a thing for any government to dare threaten with restrictions.
Mr Hope said Dr Barnes' suggestion Mrs Dingle use vitamin C and Carnivora to potentially stop the tumour growing and Dr Tabrizian's failure to examine her properly was enough reason to refer them to the board.
And who is to hold Scrayen to account for her actions? Perhaps I've missed it but I see nothing that amounts to any form of explicit penalty for her.
I'm unclear on the law in such matters but assume Ms Dingle's family could pursue civil claims against some people - though it's difficult to see how they could calculate any losses in monetary terms.
I suspect this is the last we'll hear of the case until someone else dies in similar circumstances.
Homeopath acted outside code of conduct
ReplyDeleteThe Australian Homeopathic Association says a Perth practitioner who told a patient she could cure cancer, was acting outside the industry's code of conduct.
(...)
The National President of the Australian Homeopathic Association Michelle Hookham says Mrs Scrayen is registered with her organisation.
"We do have codes of conduct and we are continually updating members and advising them of legal aspects," said Ms Hookham.
"But at the end of the day it's up to practitioners to ensure they keep up to date and abide by these codes of conduct," she said.
Which I read as: Ms Scrayen contravened the Code of Conduct, but that's her problem. In other words, the Code of Conduct is homeopathically diluted until it has no effectiveness whatsoever.
Oh, the irony.
Seems they copied their Code of Practice from Dr Peter Venkman.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think we both pointed out previously that there doesn't appear to be any specific point raised in the CoC that was contravened - at least nothing that isn't also apparently contravened, very publicly, by the WA president of the same Association.