This was an email I started to write some time ago and with John's recent blog, The Royal Homeopath vs The Medical Journalist, I thought I should get back to it. For those interested it would be best to read Rochelle's post and John's reply first so you can make sense of what I was / am writing.
................
In response to John and Rochelle's post (see below), I think the problem is that Dr Peter Fisher should not be seen or used as "a man for all seasons".
He has done excellent work in his area of expertise but in other areas, not so - and there is no shame in that. We are appreciative of his strengths.
Surely the UK can find other homeopaths for those areas that need a different type of representation?
When I go to the BHA site I see, "...doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. Practitioners are required to abide by the code of conduct of their professional body." As Dr Fisher is a medical doctor first and homeopath second, he is obliged to abide by the regulations of this council and not those of a homeopathic association.
If he does not want to lose his right to practice as a medical doctor he cannot easily or strongly speak in favour of homeopathy if it conflicts with the orthodox stance. This is clearly seen in his statements and support for medical vaccination and non-support of homeoprophylaxis.
Whether he truly believed what he said (and continues to say) orwas under pressure to comply with his medical council, his position in this area and by default, those of other medical homeopaths, is not representative of homeopathic practice or legacy. His statements in this area are being used as far afield as here, in Australia, to control what homeopaths can and can't say and can and can't do in relation to this matter.
As an Australian looking in, and with no disrespect to Dr Fisher at all, may I ask the following question?
Why is someone, who is primarily an allopathic doctor subject to the regulations of his allopathic professional body, seen as the final authority on homeopathy in the UK? It seems strange to someone on the outside. Is it the vestiges of tugging at the forelock?
Are there no non-medical homeopaths capable of being a voice of authority for homeopathy in the UK? Why does it always default to the BHA with their medical stance on homeopathy which is not necessarily representative or supportive of the non-medical homeopath?
Again, Dr Fisher has done some excellent work on behalf of homeopathy but is it wise for him to always be seen as the final authority when his first allegiance has to be to an allopathic model?
Interested to hear others thoughts on this, Fran.
Not a man for all seasons
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Not a man for all seasons
Thank you Fran.
Very well said. I, too, have questioned Fischer as the front man for homeopathy.
However, it is the media/big pharma that choses him, not the homeopathic profession.
The media will always look for someone that is most like the position they really hold.
We know that the media is not an independent profession, but one owned by the top 1%
which has its own distinct agenda.
What is critical is that the homeopathic profession needs to not be so timid about demanding
a more representative person as a spokes person. Further, homeopaths need to step up
the marketing plate as a needed component of the profession. Every business, no matter
what it is, must embrace the business of doing business. But homeopaths resist this like
the plague. Just being nice and effective is not enough for survival in this world of competition
and sleezy tactics by large corporations for control.
tanya
From: Fran Sheffield
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 5:54 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Not a man for all seasons
This was an email I started to write some time ago and with John's recent blog, The Royal Homeopath vs The Medical Journalist, I thought I should get back to it. For those interested it would be best to read Rochelle's post and John's reply first so you can make sense of what I was / am writing.
................
In response to John and Rochelle's post (see below), I think the problem is that Dr Peter Fisher should not be seen or used as "a man for all seasons".
He has done excellent work in his area of expertise but in other areas, not so - and there is no shame in that. We are appreciative of his strengths.
Surely the UK can find other homeopaths for those areas that need a different type of representation?
When I go to the BHA site I see, "...doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. Practitioners are required to abide by the code of conduct of their professional body." As Dr Fisher is a medical doctor first and homeopath second, he is obliged to abide by the regulations of this council and not those of a homeopathic association.
If he does not want to lose his right to practice as a medical doctor he cannot easily or strongly speak in favour of homeopathy if it conflicts with the orthodox stance. This is clearly seen in his statements and support for medical vaccination and non-support of homeoprophylaxis.
Whether he truly believed what he said (and continues to say) orwas under pressure to comply with his medical council, his position in this area and by default, those of other medical homeopaths, is not representative of homeopathic practice or legacy. His statements in this area are being used as far afield as here, in Australia, to control what homeopaths can and can't say and can and can't do in relation to this matter.
As an Australian looking in, and with no disrespect to Dr Fisher at all, may I ask the following question?
Why is someone, who is primarily an allopathic doctor subject to the regulations of his allopathic professional body, seen as the final authority on homeopathy in the UK? It seems strange to someone on the outside. Is it the vestiges of tugging at the forelock?
Are there no non-medical homeopaths capable of being a voice of authority for homeopathy in the UK? Why does it always default to the BHA with their medical stance on homeopathy which is not necessarily representative or supportive of the non-medical homeopath?
Again, Dr Fisher has done some excellent work on behalf of homeopathy but is it wise for him to always be seen as the final authority when his first allegiance has to be to an allopathic model?
Interested to hear others thoughts on this, Fran.
Very well said. I, too, have questioned Fischer as the front man for homeopathy.
However, it is the media/big pharma that choses him, not the homeopathic profession.
The media will always look for someone that is most like the position they really hold.
We know that the media is not an independent profession, but one owned by the top 1%
which has its own distinct agenda.
What is critical is that the homeopathic profession needs to not be so timid about demanding
a more representative person as a spokes person. Further, homeopaths need to step up
the marketing plate as a needed component of the profession. Every business, no matter
what it is, must embrace the business of doing business. But homeopaths resist this like
the plague. Just being nice and effective is not enough for survival in this world of competition
and sleezy tactics by large corporations for control.
tanya
From: Fran Sheffield
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 5:54 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Not a man for all seasons
This was an email I started to write some time ago and with John's recent blog, The Royal Homeopath vs The Medical Journalist, I thought I should get back to it. For those interested it would be best to read Rochelle's post and John's reply first so you can make sense of what I was / am writing.
................
In response to John and Rochelle's post (see below), I think the problem is that Dr Peter Fisher should not be seen or used as "a man for all seasons".
He has done excellent work in his area of expertise but in other areas, not so - and there is no shame in that. We are appreciative of his strengths.
Surely the UK can find other homeopaths for those areas that need a different type of representation?
When I go to the BHA site I see, "...doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. Practitioners are required to abide by the code of conduct of their professional body." As Dr Fisher is a medical doctor first and homeopath second, he is obliged to abide by the regulations of this council and not those of a homeopathic association.
If he does not want to lose his right to practice as a medical doctor he cannot easily or strongly speak in favour of homeopathy if it conflicts with the orthodox stance. This is clearly seen in his statements and support for medical vaccination and non-support of homeoprophylaxis.
Whether he truly believed what he said (and continues to say) orwas under pressure to comply with his medical council, his position in this area and by default, those of other medical homeopaths, is not representative of homeopathic practice or legacy. His statements in this area are being used as far afield as here, in Australia, to control what homeopaths can and can't say and can and can't do in relation to this matter.
As an Australian looking in, and with no disrespect to Dr Fisher at all, may I ask the following question?
Why is someone, who is primarily an allopathic doctor subject to the regulations of his allopathic professional body, seen as the final authority on homeopathy in the UK? It seems strange to someone on the outside. Is it the vestiges of tugging at the forelock?
Are there no non-medical homeopaths capable of being a voice of authority for homeopathy in the UK? Why does it always default to the BHA with their medical stance on homeopathy which is not necessarily representative or supportive of the non-medical homeopath?
Again, Dr Fisher has done some excellent work on behalf of homeopathy but is it wise for him to always be seen as the final authority when his first allegiance has to be to an allopathic model?
Interested to hear others thoughts on this, Fran.
-
Rochelle Marsden
- Posts: 2005
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:00 pm
Re: Not a man for all seasons
Hi Fran ,
You wrote:-
The answer is probably because he is the Queen’s homeopathic doctor and therefore is given credence. There are plenty of non medical homeopaths capable of speaking on our before but they are not asked to do so.
All the best
Rochelle
Rochelle Marsden MSc RSHom MNWCH AAMET
Southport Homeopathic Practice
Registered Homeopath and EFT (Cert. Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/southporthomeopathicpractice
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Sheffield
This was an email I started to write some time ago and with John's recent blog, The Royal Homeopath vs The Medical Journalist, I thought I should get back to it. For those interested it would be best to read Rochelle's post and John's reply first so you can make sense of what I was / am writing.
................
In response to John and Rochelle's post (see below), I think the problem is that Dr Peter Fisher should not be seen or used as "a man for all seasons".
He has done excellent work in his area of expertise but in other areas, not so - and there is no shame in that. We are appreciative of his strengths.
Surely the UK can find other homeopaths for those areas that need a different type of representation?
When I go to the BHA site I see, "...doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. Practitioners are required to abide by the code of conduct of their professional body." As Dr Fisher is a medical doctor first and homeopath second, he is obliged to abide by the regulations of this council and not those of a homeopathic association.
If he does not want to lose his right to practice as a medical doctor he cannot easily or strongly speak in favour of homeopathy if it conflicts with the orthodox stance. This is clearly seen in his statements and support for medical vaccination and non-support of homeoprophylaxis.
Whether he truly believed what he said (and continues to say) orwas under pressure to comply with his medical council, his position in this area and by default, those of other medical homeopaths, is not representative of homeopathic practice or legacy. His statements in this area are being used as far afield as here, in Australia, to control what homeopaths can and can't say and can and can't do in relation to this matter.
As an Australian looking in, and with no disrespect to Dr Fisher at all, may I ask the following question?
Why is someone, who is primarily an allopathic doctor subject to the regulations of his allopathic professional body, seen as the final authority on homeopathy in the UK? It seems strange to someone on the outside. Is it the vestiges of tugging at the forelock?
Are there no non-medical homeopaths capable of being a voice of authority for homeopathy in the UK? Why does it always default to the BHA with their medical stance on homeopathy which is not necessarily representative or supportive of the non-medical homeopath?
Again, Dr Fisher has done some excellent work on behalf of homeopathy but is it wise for him to always be seen as the final authority when his first allegiance has to be to an allopathic model?
Interested to hear others thoughts on this, Fran.
You wrote:-
The answer is probably because he is the Queen’s homeopathic doctor and therefore is given credence. There are plenty of non medical homeopaths capable of speaking on our before but they are not asked to do so.
All the best
Rochelle
Rochelle Marsden MSc RSHom MNWCH AAMET
Southport Homeopathic Practice
Registered Homeopath and EFT (Cert. Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/southporthomeopathicpractice
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Sheffield
This was an email I started to write some time ago and with John's recent blog, The Royal Homeopath vs The Medical Journalist, I thought I should get back to it. For those interested it would be best to read Rochelle's post and John's reply first so you can make sense of what I was / am writing.
................
In response to John and Rochelle's post (see below), I think the problem is that Dr Peter Fisher should not be seen or used as "a man for all seasons".
He has done excellent work in his area of expertise but in other areas, not so - and there is no shame in that. We are appreciative of his strengths.
Surely the UK can find other homeopaths for those areas that need a different type of representation?
When I go to the BHA site I see, "...doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. Practitioners are required to abide by the code of conduct of their professional body." As Dr Fisher is a medical doctor first and homeopath second, he is obliged to abide by the regulations of this council and not those of a homeopathic association.
If he does not want to lose his right to practice as a medical doctor he cannot easily or strongly speak in favour of homeopathy if it conflicts with the orthodox stance. This is clearly seen in his statements and support for medical vaccination and non-support of homeoprophylaxis.
Whether he truly believed what he said (and continues to say) orwas under pressure to comply with his medical council, his position in this area and by default, those of other medical homeopaths, is not representative of homeopathic practice or legacy. His statements in this area are being used as far afield as here, in Australia, to control what homeopaths can and can't say and can and can't do in relation to this matter.
As an Australian looking in, and with no disrespect to Dr Fisher at all, may I ask the following question?
Why is someone, who is primarily an allopathic doctor subject to the regulations of his allopathic professional body, seen as the final authority on homeopathy in the UK? It seems strange to someone on the outside. Is it the vestiges of tugging at the forelock?
Are there no non-medical homeopaths capable of being a voice of authority for homeopathy in the UK? Why does it always default to the BHA with their medical stance on homeopathy which is not necessarily representative or supportive of the non-medical homeopath?
Again, Dr Fisher has done some excellent work on behalf of homeopathy but is it wise for him to always be seen as the final authority when his first allegiance has to be to an allopathic model?
Interested to hear others thoughts on this, Fran.