AS a GP, I can say that many doctors, including myself, value the Homeopathic Hospital in Glasgow, as do the patients ("GPs caught up in row over homeopathic prescriptions", The Herald, November 28).
While I have no detailed knowledge of the finances, I suspect it may also be good value for money for the NHS. I think it would be short-sighted of the health board to cut funding without considering the broader implications.
The involvement of GPs in issuing homeopathic prescriptions was done with no consultation. The current situation is that the homeopathic prescriber issues what is essentially a private prescription, which can then be taken to the GP to be transcribed on to a NHS prescription form. The GP is being asked to sign a prescription for a preparation about which he or she may have no or limited knowledge, which is clearly not good practice. Moreover, the preparations are often not on our clinical system in the same form, leading to time spent telephoning and checking, and giving potential for errors.
This situation could easily be resolved by the homeopathic prescriber writing the prescription on an NHS prescription form, which the patient could then take straight to the pharmacy, thus averting much frustration on the part of all involved, including the patients. There is a precedent for this, in that certain medicines are, by agreement, prescribed directly by hospital doctors, where it is felt that the GP may not have sufficient knowledge or experience to take responsibility for the prescription.
I trust this simple solution will be actively considered.
Dr Christine M Crawford,
Sandyford Surgery,
1119 Argyle Street,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article