NHS Homeopathy petition

[vbloke]

it might not do any good, but there's a petition to stop NHS money going towards homeopathy

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/nonhshomeopathy/

[Jocky]

I'm there, FWIW.

Given that there are government ministers not smart enough to realise that homeopathy is a scam, it seems unlikely that it will make any difference though :(

[Admin]

Me too. O0

I'm rather dubious as to the worth of these petitions but I suppose they're at least a way letting government know that some of us are against the waste of public money on quackery.

[Mongrel]

Signed :)

Likewise I'm not convinced of their honesty when it comes to facts Vs Money :(

[QueigBladecaster]

signed up but not holding out much hope.

Theres also a current petition pressing for more homeopathy, acupuncture, acupressure,hydrotherapy etc etc etc (insert chosen ineffective health theory here) on the NHS.

This currently has over 1500 signatures as opposed to the anti-homepathy total of 68 :-\

Queig wanders off humming Greenday's 'minority' to himself

[tkingdoll]

I like these govt-provided petitions because they make me feel like I have a voice, but I have a sneaky feeling they are there for exactly that purpose and are pretty much ignored in reality.

Does anyone know if any of these online petitions have had an effect since the website was launched?

The best I can find is this in the FAQ:

What will happen to my petition once it is finished?

Once your petition has closed, usually provided there are 200 signatures or more, it will be passed to officials who work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, or sent to the relevant Government department for a response.

Every person who signs such a petition will receive an email detailing the Government's response to the issues raised.

And I just looked at some of the topics and there are petitions with over a 100k signatures that are frankly a waste of time. For example "petition to have inheritance tax scrapped at the next budget". I find it highly unlikely that all of the 100k people who signed it have in-depth understanding of inheritance tax or the associated issues. So what's the point of signing? There's no way that the govt. is going to scrap inheritance tax even if the entire country signed the petition.

[Araneus]

There's no way that the govt. is going to scrap inheritance tax even if the entire country signed the petition.

Of course not. The whole country practically did sign the "No road tracking" petition, and the government responded with a big "Up yours!".

Oh, and it's worth noting that the "teach our superstitious bullshit in schools" petition is way ahead of the "abolish faith schools" petition in terms of popularity.

[median]

So realistically, does anyone really believe that the political process is going to have an effect?

No?

The key is the education of individuals. OK, this may come from state education but it can also come from families, peer groups etc.

When you stop the demand for these potentially damaging health alternatives then you might be achieving something.

Legislating against is not really going to achieve anything...mobile phones, fox-hunting, traffic warden baiting...er..I made that last one up but has legislation actually made a difference?

[tkingdoll]

Hmm, I haven't seen figures but I'd be surprised if the mobile phone driving ban hasn't had an effect.

I agree that the fox hunting law appears to have had little effect, although it's heartening to see that the Govt is prepared to thumb a nose at the demands of royalty. Bodes well for alt med :D

Although my opinion is that the bill was intended precisely to make the Govt look like working class heroes when in actual fact they are no such thing.

[Araneus]

I simply can't understand all of the angst over fox-hunting -- it's like, who cares? I see numerous dead foxes, badgers etc by the side of the road when I drive to work, but nobody is clamouring to put up special fences to stop the poor foxes from getting run over.

[Cuddles]

I simply can't understand all of the angst over fox-hunting -- it's like, who cares? I see numerous dead foxes, badgers etc by the side of the road when I drive to work, but nobody is clamouring to put up special fences to stop the poor foxes from getting run over.


There's a very big difference between leaving animals to their own devices and deliberately torturing them to death. Yes, animals die, and if they can't cope with the moden world they might die more often and in different ways. Chasing them down and watching them be ripped apart by wild dogs really isn't the same thing. We don't put big walls around the top of cliffs to stop people jumping off, but we do have laws against pushing them.

I really don't understand the pro-hunt arguments. There is absolutely no point to it. It doesn't control fox numbers, in fact it actually increases them. All it is is a blood sport left over from the middle ages, and yet because this is the "modern" world people assume that anything we do must have a point to it and can't just be leftovers from a different time. I don't see anyone complaining that cock-fighting is banned, and yet there is bascially no difference.

As far as legislation goes, it certainly has made a difference. There used to be quite a few hunts near me, now there are none. There are a very few people who try to ignore the laws and actually hunt live animals, and some of them, at least, have been prosecuted for it. As for mobile phones, I don't know if it has made a difference, but I certianly nope it has because it genuinely is dangerous. Anecdoteally, I used to know a lot of people who would talk on phones while driving, including my parents, and now I don't know anyone who does, although I still see a lot of people do it. On the other hand, I don't know if this is anything to do with the law, or simply because they know hte risks better now.

[Jocky]

Although I personally find foxhunting very distasteful, I am sceptical of the purpose which is served by banning it.


animals die, and if they can't cope with the moden world they might die more often and in different ways. Chasing them down and watching them be ripped apart by wild dogs really isn't the same thing

What is the substansive difference between killing a fox by ripping it apart, and shooting/poisioning it?


I really don't understand the pro-hunt arguments. There is absolutely no point to it. It doesn't control fox numbers, in fact it actually increases them

Why does it increase them?

Both of these are genuine (not rhetorical) questions ...

[Cuddles]

What is the substansive difference between killing a fox by ripping it apart, and shooting/poisioning it?

Shooting is generally a quick death, even if you just injure it you can easily catch and it and kill it. In addition, shooting is sudden. One minute you are a fox running around, the next you're hit. A hunt, on the other hand, can take hours during which the fox is terrified and running for its life, after which it is torn apart and eaten alive. The whole point of shooting foxes is to kill the fox. The whole point of hunting foxes is to enjoy killing defenseless animals. Even if the actual method of death was not different, there is an important moral difference where blood sports are concerned. It's like the difference between wrining a chickens neck and forcing it to fight to the death against another chicken for entertainment. The result may be the same, and the chicken probably doesn't enjoy either, but most people agree that cockfighting is wrong. Fox hunting should be no different.

As for poisoning, I've never actually heard of someone poisoning foxes. Since they prefer to catch live animals I'm not sure it would actually work. Rat poison works by thinning the blood (warfarin is not used as poison any more, but is now used to treat heart problems) and by all accounts the death is relatively painless - the rat simply falls unconious and dies. I have no reason to believe poisoning foxes would be any different, although there might be issues with other animals eating it accidentally.

Not what I was looking for, but a report on a study on the effect of hunting on deer can be found here (http://"http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420780.800-deer-succumb-to-the-stress-of-the-chase.html").

One thing to think about is that we ban dogs bred for fighting like pit-bulls. I can't find a source at the moment, but hunt proponents have said that if hunting was banned, most fox hounds would have to be put down because they are not suitable for adoption, being bred soley for killing. I read about that before the ban, so I'm not sure what actually happened.


Why does it increase them?

If people hunt foxes then people want foxes to hunt. To take an analogy from Terry Pratchett, if you put a bounty on rat tails to reduce the population then people will start rat farms. I don't think anyone ever started a fox farm, but areas of woodland would be protected for them so that they could breed in safety until someone wanted to hunt them. At least http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2761-hunting-does-not-control-foxes-says-study.html"]one (http://"[url) study[/URL] has shown that banning hunting has no effect on fox numbers.

An interesting point is that hunting proponents always claim that hunting reduces fox numbers, but the people hunting are not the farmers who actually have an interest in reducing their numbers. The farmers, almost without exception, choose shotguns and traps. It is possible the farmers have it all wrong, but I would generally assume that the people who's livelihoods rest on keeping fox numbers down are more likely to be right than people who really don't care either way. A point that cannot be argued is that whether hunting does or doesn't have any effect, it is certainly not the best way of killing foxes, since shooting and trapping are much more effective. A hunt takes hours with lots of people, horses and dogs. One person on their own can lay many traps or shoot lots of foxes in the same time. Hunting is done as a sport. Whatever people claim its benefits are, they are simply excuses why they should be allowed, not actual reasons for doing so.

Before anyone else brings it up, I will freely admit that there are ethical problems with trapping as well. There is no doubt that it is an extremely painful way to die, and some argue that it is actually worse than hunting. Personally I would prefer trapping not to take place but, in the end, it is done for a reason. Some farmers need a way to keep fox numbers down, and trapping is probably the most effective way. Killing animals is never a pleasant business, but as long as there is a good reason for it, not just for enjoyment, then I won't argue against it.

[bindeweede]

it might not do any good, but there's a petition to stop NHS money going towards homeopathy

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/nonhshomeopathy/
Just signed - might just have made it!!