Reprinted courtesy Brandon Turbeville from: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/07/new-campaign-to-ban-pet-homeopathy-in-the-uk.html
The mainstream media and medical establishment in the UK has discovered a potentially deadly threat to pets and animals in the kingdom, but that threat is not a fast-spreading disease, destruction of a natural habitat or tainted food. According to some vets, the frightening threat to pet health is homeopathy.
According to reports by the Daily Mail, over 2500 vets, veterinary nurses, “scientists” and “animal lovers” have signed a petition to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons demanding that it blacklist homeopathy.
Homeopathy is practiced by around 50 vets in the UK who are also fully qualified veterinary surgeons who simply offer the treatments in addition to conventional options. The petition signers warn that homeopathy is dangerous and claim to fear for the wellbeing of pets who are treated with the alternative therapy as opposed to conventional medicine.
For instance, Devon vet Danny Chambers states, “the health of animals is totally in the hands of those charged with their care. It is unethical to inflict ineffective alternatives on creatures that have no choice in the matter.”
That, in a nutshell, is the argument being made by those on a crusade to blacklist homeopathy. But there remains an interesting question that needs to be asked to the signatories of this petition: If homeopathic remedies are ineffective, and are simply a placebo, why are they so dangerous? While it is certainly true that treatments can be both ineffective and unsafe (vaccines stand as a prime example), the anti-homeos seem to be arguing that something they consider to be the equivalent of a sugar pill is also somehow dangerous.
Others of course argue that while homeopathy might not be dangerous in and of itself it is dangerous when used in place of conventional treatments. Of course, Mr. Chambers would never argue that the litany of drugs given to animals should be blacklisted because of their many side-effects, only when there is a perceived albeit admittedly indirect danger presented by natural remedies does Chambers argue for any kind of ban.
While Chambers may not necessarily agree with homeopathy, or acknowledge that it has positive results, he nonetheless has engaged in jihad against the rights of pet owners who may seek a treatment that does not involve the possibility of liver failure, seizure or death. In other words, if Chambers doesn’t approve of a treatment, it should be banned, plain and simple.
Chambers believes that people are too stupid to make the right decision, so all other options should be eliminated. Theresa May might not be a great choice for Prime Minister, but woe unto the people of England if Danny Chambers is ever placed in that position. One thing is for sure, the English dinner menu would be a lot shorter as it would only contain a list of the foods Chambers likes and approves of. Opposition Parties would be eliminated and votes would only be cast if they were for Danny Chambers.
Thankfully, at least for now, Chambers is relegated to obscurity, the daily grind and signing pre-written letters to veterinary organizations.
What is interesting about Chambers’ argument regarding the ethics of inflicting “ineffective alternatives” on animals “that have no choice in the matter” is that Chambers does not apply this logic to horse-drawn carriages, circus animals or animal test subjects. After all, it is a vast difference between treating an animal with a therapeutic method that is ineffective at worst and torturing them until they perform tricks or produce a biological response.
According to Chambers, homeopathy is the equivalent of animal cruelty, but he says nothing about the treatment of animals in the instances mentioned above. Certainly, horses do not come into the world dreaming of the day they drag drunken and overweight sightseers slowly through streets filled with traffic and pollution. No dog wakes up in the morning feeling unfulfilled that his science career of having chemicals dropped into his eyes is yet to be realized. Are we to assume that Chambers truly believes this is an animal’s choice? Or are we to believe that his concern for animals is selective?
The answer to that question, hopefully, is clear but we should also ask, is this alleged concern for animals not only selective but just the latest attack on natural medicines and individual choice in a long campaign by pharmaceutical and medical industrial corporations dragging their media outlets along behind them?