My research is very much focused on placebos. Therefore, I'm at least tangentially interested in homeopathy and its use. Recently, the BMA came out against homeopathy (and by extension, the placebo). This has been picked up by a BMJ blogger and the Guardian
Now, this is obviously a subject of great interest to me, regardless of the efficacy or otherwise of homeopathy. The placebo has been demonstrated to be very effective in relieving pain, depression and ulcers. The issue then becomes, if one is aware that placebo can help, what is the grounds for denying this effective treatment to a patient?
Many doctors would argue that the use of placebos has the possibility to diminish trust, and research has shown that this trust can be a powerful healing force (the therapuetic alliance, as it were).
However, in this case, they should probably not have come out against homeopathy, and indeed should probably encourage people to try alternative medicines more generally. My reasoning for this is as follows:
a) Doctors do not wish to prescribe placebos due to the deception
b) Even if they did, their knowledge that they were doing so would probably reduce the efficacy of the placebo
c) Homeopathy is a placebo (just assume this is true for the moment)
d) Homeopathists beleive in their treatments.
Therefore, its a win win for doctors to encourage (privately of course) patients to see homeopathists. The patients will gain some benefit, the homeopathist will be able to give them more time and attention (which is critical for placebo) and the doctors need not engage in any unethical behaviour.
Its simple really, but I'm not really surprised that the BMA didnt go for it. The placebo and this kind of stuff pushes against most of what doctors believe, and its very difficult to go against one's beliefs, even for the best of causes.