20 years ago: The British Homoeopathic Journal, October 1990

Shades of things to come?

This issue of the Journal opens with the headline “Alert: Homoeopathy banned in US state!”[ ¹ ] and outlines how this has come about. In 1985, Dr George Guess was found guilty by the North Carolina (NC) Board of Medical Examiners of ‘unprofessional conduct’ for using homeopathic medicine in his practice. He appealed to the Superior Court and won. The Board’s action was deemed ‘arbitrary and capricious’. The Board’s appeal to the NC Court of Appeals was rejected; it was not arbitrary and capricious, but still in error. A final appeal, to the state Supreme Court, was successful.

The eight points of the court’s ruling cover one whole page. Point 3 has an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ flavour. “The Court determined that the Board presented competent evidence that homoeopathic practice did not conform to the ‘acceptable and prevailing’ standards within North Carolina. (The evidence consisted of two physicians who listened to Dr Guess’s description of homeopathy and then stated that they had never been taught such things in medical school and they know of no physician in the state, other than Dr Guess, who practised homeopathy; therefore homeopathy was neither acceptable nor prevailing). The Court ruled that this evidence was enough. All the evidence which was submitted regarding the safety and efficacy of homoeopathy and its widespread acceptance throughout the world simply was not considered relevant.” Point 7 had a more ominous ring: “With regard to Guess’s contention that the Board’s action unconstitutionally invades his and his clients’ privacy rights and their rights to choose their preferred medical treatment, the court alluded to an earlier precedent which stated, ‘There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the states’ … (the court) recognized no fundamental right (of the public) to receive unorthodox medical treatment”.

There was a spirited dissent from the opinion of the court by a Justice Frye, who concluded “this raises the legitimate question of how the acceptable and prevailing practice can be improved in North Carolina if we do not even consider what happens in other states and countries”. The Journal urged all readers to give moral, and if possible financial support to George Guess; commenting that “The only other states which have attempted to suppress homoeopathy in recent times have been some Eastern Bloc countries, particularly East Germany and Czechoslovakia. But this policy has been abandoned since the recent advent of democratic governments in those countries”.

• References

• 1 Anon. Alert: homoeopathy banned in US state!. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 195-197.
• 2 Moskowitz R. Two childbirth remedies. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 206-211.
• 3 Ventoskovskiy B.M., Popov A.V. Homoeopathy as a practical alternative to traditional obstetric methods. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 201-205.
• 4 Di Nepi L. Practical applications of isotherapy in chronic and acute pathologies. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 217–220.
• 5 Fisher P. Research review: negative results. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 230–231.
• 6 Coulter C. Book review: portrait of indifference. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 241.
• 7 Shuttleworth V.S. Obituary. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 247.