Homeopathy should be banned

I'd like to make one very quick observation before I get into the bulk of this round: Homeopathy shouldn't be conflated with alternative medicine as a whole. This debate is specifically about banning homeopathy. I concede that other alternative medicines have a lot going for them, and perhaps in some cases should be used in classical medicine. Any argument of my opponent's, therefore, that seeks to rebut my case by rubbishing classical medicine does not show why my case should fall. === Re-inforcement of my previous arguments === First of all, I accept that the first two of my arguments do not in and of themselves show that we should ban homeopathy: my argument was written more as a whole, in which the first two points acted as premises moving towards the conclusion, reached in the third point, that we should ban homeopathy. Written more formally, therefore, the argument I put forward was: Premise 1: Homeopathy is a medically unsound practice, and thus instances where it seems to work (where it is the only treatment used) is explainable entirely by the placebo effect. Premise 2: The placebo effect, whilst it has an amazing track record on a small scale, is unreliable and distinctly unamazing on the large scale. Premise 3: People who use homeopathy and initially find it successful are far more likely to continue to use homeopathy in the future. Intermediate Conclusion: This increased usage becomes a significant problem, and causes massive harms, when patients face large-scale - and often life-threatening - illnesses (e. g. cancer, malaria, etc. ) which cannot be reliably treated in any way by homeopathy. Main Conclusion: We should ban homeopathy. 1) ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOMEOPATHY I find my opponent's candour regarding the evidence on homeopathy refreshing: he implicitly accepted, for instance, that homepathy does not - when tested in methodologically fair conditions - show itself to be any better than the placebo effect, given that he didn't argue against his own sources which argued the contrary. He did, in this point, however, argue that there is an "inconsistency" in the argument for banning homeopathy, claiming that this approach would've led someone in earlier decades to ban 'classical medicine'. This conclusion, though, does not follow, for my argument is that homeopathy does not work at all, not merely that it is 'less effective', as classical medicine may have been perceived. My argument for banning homeopathy is based on the fact that when the placebo effect breaks down in such treatments, there is nothing left, causing massive harms for people dependent on the treatment in the face of serious (and, in various cases, life-threatening) illnesses. This base means that it does not transfer to classical medicine, which will always have the bio-chemical effect regardless. 2) ON THE PLACEBO EFFECT BEING UNWORKABLE ON SERIOUS ILLNESSES I used the "bleeding from primary artery" analogy only in relation to the specific point of how physical realities can overwhelm psychological 'placebo effects' that may also be in effect. To use a more homeopathic example, we can look to instances where homeopathic remedies have actually been used - and actively recommended by homeopaths - to protect against malaria when travelling in West Africa (where risk of malaria is high). This led to one specifically reported situation where: "a woman had relied on homeopathy during a trip to Togo in West Africa, which resulted in a serious bout of malaria. This meant she had to endure two months of intensive care for multiple organ system failure. In this case, the placebo effect offered no protection. That's the harm. " (. http://www.1023.org.uk...) I therefore extend my arguments about the ineffectiveness of the placebo effect on a large scale. Moving onto another point made by my opponent in this section, I do not understand what my opponent was getting at with his "doctors sometimes kill or sexually abuse people" point. The bad practice of a very small minority of doctors doesn't somehow give itself to the conclusion that the medicine itself should be banned, and I'm baffled as to why my opponent seemed to think that the logical fallacy in that argument would undermine my argument in any way. 3) ON WHEN PEOPLE START TO RELY ON HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES TO THE EXCLUSION OF CLASSICAL MEDICINE I refer back to my earlier arguments about why it is acceptable to ban homeopathy. It is not a matter of 'wind blowing in specific ways at specific times', or 'classical medicine being unjustifiably "preferred" to homeopathy'; it is a matter of homeopathy being medically illiterate and unsound, and of fundamentally going against tried-and-tested and proven principles of science. I extend my examples in point 1 of my round 1. I also quickly add four extra rebuttals: 1) It would be actually more expensive to allow all 'medicines' and sundry to be used, contrary to what my opponent assumed: introducing unproven and medically uncertain treatments into the mix ramps up the cost of the profession - whether it be because, like in the NHS, Government subsidies have to pay extra for the treatment; or because the patients themselves have to pay for the treatment. 2) Unlike death by capital punishment, a ban on homeopathy could be reversed if necessary (for example, if God changed the laws of science such that homeopathy actually made scientific sense). 3) If people are risking their health based on an incomplete medical understanding, then yes - they haven't truly decided for themselves. This is why we have trained doctors to make medical diagnoses in the first place. 4) Even if supporting the scientific facts in opposition to medically unsound hypotheses is "scientism" (which it isn't, see . http://en.wikipedia.org...), then so be it. The burden then would be on my opponent to prove why this approach is bad, which thusfar he hasn't done. === Rebuttal of my opponent's arguments === It is unfortunate that my opponent did not have time to fully expand on his constructive material - hopefully he will be able to do so in the next round :) To deal quickly, therefore, with his two main points: 1) Unwanted interactions in classical medicine The bad/reckless practice of some medical practitioners does not prove that classical medicine itself is harmful. Just because Michael Jackson's personal physician may have given him a recklessly high and eventually lethal concoction of drugs, that doesn't mean that all classial medicine is doomed. The unwanted interactions in such circumstances are down to the recklessness (or occasionally malice aforethought) of the doctors themselves. I also extend my opening observation that homeopathy is not to be conflated with alternative medicine as a whole - therefore, even if my opponent were to prove conclusively that classical medical treatments is flawed, that would not in any way lead to the conclusion that homeopathy is OK and should not be banned. 2) On what medicine is. As my opponent hasn't yet analysed this argument, and as I've not heard the argument before to know how it will progress, it is difficult for me to rebut this point at this stage. I will, however, point out that whilst the use of medicine can be politicised - either through price wars between drug companies, or through the decision about which drugs should be allowed (such as with NICE in the UK, see . http://www.nice.org.uk...) - this doesn't bear upon whether the medical treatment itself is scientifically sound, or causes any benefits or harms. In this respect, medicine is certainly a science, even when the politicisation of medicine is not. As I'm running out of characters, I shall leave my argument here for now. Homeopathy is harmful when it is relied upon in situations where it cannot help. It should therefore be banned.