Sir, In their call for a halt to NHS funding of alternative therapies Professor Michael Baum and his colleagues are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (report, May 23). While the efficacy of some treatments, such as homoeopathy, reflexology and crystal healing, may be difficult to prove, other alternative treatments have been practised safely and effectively for thousands of years and have been proven by scientific studies.

Western medicine is undoubtedly the most advanced medical system for treating the symptoms of illness and physically intervening in the functioning of the body to tackle the cause (for example, to remove cancerous cells). However, these scientific advances have often been at the expense of supporting the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the patient, which is where alternative treatments excel.

In my experience as a Chinese acupuncturist and herbalist specialising in treating fertility, medicine is at its most effective when utilising the science of Western medicine for diagnosis and intervention, while using Chinese medicine to create a balance in the patient’s physical and emotional wellbeing that can allow the body to function as it should.

Eighty per cent of couples who come to see me having failed to conceive using IVF succeed in getting pregnant when their next round of IVF is supported by acupuncture and herbal medicines.

If the Professor Baum and his colleagues are really concerned about shortages and rationing in the NHS they should be calling for government-funded research into the efficacy of alternative treatments that complement Western medicine. As alternative treatments are almost always significantly cheaper to implement than Western pharmaceutical and surgical treatments, this could save the NHS and the taxpayer millions of pounds. The professors should also back those medical disciplines that wish to “professionalise” through systems of statutory regulation, in the way that the Chinese medical community has done in the UK.

NAAVA CARMAN
London NW4

Sir, Resources are limited in the NHS. How can we justify spending millions on these unsubstantiated treatments while nurses are being laid off and people are denied access to treatments such as Herceptin?

I understand that it is unfair to lump all alternative therapies together. There is a world of difference between acupuncture (which appears to work even if we do not fully understand how) and crystal therapy. Particular scorn should be reserved for homoeopathy which, by treating people with solutions so dilute that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains, is almost the classic definition of a placebo. In time evidence may emerge to support the validity of some of these treatments, at which point public funding should be considered.

But at present the choice is clear — does a 21st-century society opt to spend its limited resources on evidence-based medicine or mumbo-jumbo?

PETER McDADE
Edinburgh

Sir, The demand for complementary medicine in the UK is, in part, driven by the NHS. Patients seek the help of chiropractors and osteopaths for conditions such as back pain for a reason — their GP is unable to provide anything other than symptomatic relief while the problem rights itself. With back pain costing the country an estimated £11 billion a year, the need for effective treatment should be transparent.

A. J. YATES
Milton Keynes

Sir, It is a sad day when the medical profession decides to “abandon” alternative medicine. Where is their scientific curiosity? I thought being “scientific” was to consider all options. The conclusion has been made without looking at the thousands of scientific papers which have been conducted on many therapies, under rigorous conditions.

The real casualties here are not practitioners of alternative medicine, but the patients who, having tried orthodox medicine, have found solutions to their health problems.

NYEMA HERMISTON
New South Wales

Sir, In “All in the mind?” (report, May 24), it was reported that the Prince of Wales had “suggested that doctors prescribe coffee enemas to cancer patients”. This is not true. In a speech to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 2004, the Prince said he personally knew of one cancer patient who had used Gerson therapy (a treatment which includes the use of coffee enemas), and who was still alive seven years after being told her cancer was terminal. The Prince went on to say that while “one patient’s experience cannot hold water as evidence” that Gerson therapy worked, more evidence was needed to determine what the risks and benefits of the therapy might be.

PADDY HARVERSON
Communications Secretary to the Prince of Wales
London SW1

Explore Letters

• Feedback