Accreditation defined


Accreditation could be defined as a proprietory therapeutic method that uses highly concentrated record-keeping combined with a dilute programme of intensive inspection, whose effects, when administered to organisations that currently satisfy customers well enough to still be in business, deliver a feeling of confidence. 

Now we’re clear that accreditation is a cartel marketing magic as science it will be easier to dissect.

Wow…looks scientific!

It is a bit like homeopathy except that almost no doctors believe in homeopathy. But many act as if they do believe in accreditation by CPA, UKAS, ISO and other organisations that follow similar inspectionist philosophies.  Most are enforced or enabled by central government; some are professional inventions with the hope of eluding government regulation.

Are massive failures are occurring less often because of these schemes?  Read the papers!

Posadzki et al. define homeopathy and proceed to offer evidence of harm against its use:

“Homeopathy can be defined as ‘a therapeutic method that often uses highly diluted preparations of substances whose effects when administered to healthy subjects correspond to the manifestation of the disorder (symptoms, clinical signs and pathological states) in the unwell patient’. It is one of the most popular form of complementary and alternative medicine in the UK and elsewhere. The reasons for this widespread use are probably complex, but the assumption that homeopathy is safe is certainly an important factor.”

Homeopathy may cause harm, as the paper below describes.  One day accreditation will also be researched without the vested interests that have characterised the few papers on the subject to date. Maybe then doctors will treat it with the same skepticism as homeopathy.

Anything powerful enough to do good may also cause harm.  Even something with no power to do good may yet achieve harm.

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding the adverse effects (AEs) of homeopathy.

Method: Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant case reports and case series.

Results: In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy.

Conclusion: Homeopathy has the potential to harm patients and consumers in both direct and indirect ways. Clinicians should be aware of its risks and advise their patients accordingly.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Laboratory medicine, Management, Medicine, NHS, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s