The Future of Homeopathy: An Opinion on the state of the Homeopathic Union

by Richard Pitt

I think there are two main challenges facing homeopathy today – the education of competent practitioners who can practice the art of homeopathy and secondly, the recognition of homeopathy as a distinct profession.  There is obviously a connection between these two concerns.  To ask people to make the commitment to study homeopathy without being legally recognized as a homeopath at the end is not easy.  The current reality is that there are precious few people who are training to be homeopaths.  It is not satisfying for people to practice homeopathy under another license in which homeopathy is not truly recognized, or without a license and existing in the twilight of the law, however good a homeopath the person may be.

Therefore, one option is for homeopathy to become licensed as other professions have and carve its own position in the pie of medical therapies.  However, that is easier said than done, and the particular history of homeopathy being practiced by physicians within current medical licensure creates a unique challenge for that goal.

Also, the history of medical licensure brings up a number of questions.  The fact is that licensure creates an exclusive right to practice for those who are licensed.  It is not legal for non-licensed practitioners to practice any licensed therapy.  The standards that determine licensure are mandated by the state with the enforcement of these standards under state jurisdiction.  The question has to be asked whether we want homeopathy to go down that route.  

There is an argument that licensure has now become more important for a profession in protecting its turf and its practitioners from accountability than it has in maintaining standards and protecting the public. Another concern is that licensure can actually dilute the standards of practice as the board exams are written by people outside of the profession, and which, especially for alternative and holistic professions leads to the dilution of the very principles that make it distinct from conventional medicine.  Do we want to forfeit that independence and control?  Do we as a profession also want to dictate to all homeopaths what is acceptable homeopathy?  On the other hand, do we want to see homeopathy subsumed within the scope of practice of other professions, where the quality of training and practice can be diluted and compromised? 

The state of homeopathic education under the auspices of Naturopathic Medicine is one example. Naturopathy is licensed in a number of states in the United States and Canada and homeopathy is included in their training and scope of practice. However, it is a marginalized profession, not taken seriously by that many naturopaths and the hours given to homeopathic training inadequate to produce a competent practitioner without significant extra-curricular training. Is that a good model for homeopathy?

Therefore, another solution may be needed, one which would also be consistent with the philosophy of homeopathy.  Let the individual practitioner and the individual patient determine the context of the relationship.  Let people choose who they want to see as their practitioner.  Let the profession of homeopathy take responsibility for determining its own standards of practice and professionalism.  Keep the offices of the state out of the business of determining health standards for homeopathy.  Let the profession look after its own concerns, define its own standards and regulate itself.   Surely this is more consistent with homeopathic philosophy, one that encourages autonomy and responsibility, not one that encourages dependency and power over the patient and public.  

Ivan Illitch, in his book, “Limits to Medicine,” wrote in 1976 that “a recovery from society-wide iatrogenic disease is a political task, not a professional one. It must be based on a grassroots consensus about the balance between the civil liberty to heal and the civil right to equitable health care.  During the last generations the medical monopoly over health care has expanded without checks and has encroached on our liberty with regard to our own bodies.  Society has transferred to physicians the exclusive right to determine what constitutes sickness, who is or might become sick and what shall be done to such people.”  

That was written in 1976 and today it is even worse.  The medical statutes in each state were written deliberately to give a monopoly of control to physicians for all health care concerns.  Licensure is an integral part of that control.  Homeopathy needs to be part of a movement that moves away from this kind of dominance.  We need to work to allow homeopathy and other therapies to be practiced freely without been overseen by state and other beurocratic controls.  We need to help empower people to take responsibility for their own health concerns.  This does not mean giving up our standards.  We need to continually develop standards of competency for homeopathy, to work toward a united homeopathic profession.  The current situation where homeopathy is “Balkanized” within a variety of other professions does not help our cause.  We have to be able to practice freely as professional homeopaths and for the public to be able to choose any homeopath they wish.  It is an injustice to the potential of homeopathy for it to exist in its current legal ambiguity.  We have to take it to the next level, to create the political changes that would allow thousands more people choose to become homeopaths and to choose homeopathic treatment.