Abstract
Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.
Highlights
For many years, critics have argued that the evidence base for homeopathy is insufficient and that efficacy cannot be broadly demonstrated
We examine the logic of moral critiques of homeopathy and argue that homeopathy is ethical because: it offers significant value and benefits to patients; it facilitates a diagnostic process which culminates in treatment or referral; it is founded upon a caring, therapeutic relationship between the clinician and the patient; and it is guided by the freedom of choice of consenting patients
What is needed is a more sophisticated approach to evidence in medicine. This approach would recognise that what constitutes evidence can be defined and measured in different ways by different people or groups, and that judgments about competing epistemes are statements about the ‘value’ of particular data or outcomes
Summary
Critics have argued that the evidence base for homeopathy is insufficient and that efficacy cannot be broadly demonstrated.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
