Greens Group

ABSTRACT: Homoeopathy could be the key providing access to a world of ancient tradition, one with more experience, more recognition from its patient's, and more potential commercially.

(Papers of the Transnational Conference: "THE HOMOEOPATIC REMEDY-NON-MEDICINE. A PROPOSAL FOR RECOGNITION" - Rome 12th and 13th december 1988).

I wish to thank the organizers for this confrontation and debate as the problem of Homoeopathy must be raised both in our country and in Parliament.

I believe that the parliamentary man should become the link, the spokesman of what is going on in the country; he must be the informer of the citizens as regards of what is going on in parliament in an attempt to break the barriers between Parliament and the institutions and we have noticed that in the real country the approach towards health is very different from the one usually believed. A Censis report, in fact, is proof of this change.

I remenber that with the financial law of last year, the problem of Homoeopathy was raised by two proposals; that of detracting from income tax and that of enclosing Homoeopathic Remedies in the National Health Service (S.S.N.) (this would be a very important point to underline in this debate).

It was pure provocation and a big argument was started during the meeting which finally reached nothing at all.

This year things have changed: during the Social Affairs Commitee the government accepted an agenda which we submitted in which we ask that non conventional medicine should not be penalized as regards research nor as regards its application and sale of remedies.

This seems to me a very important point even if it has been accepted as a recommendation and not as agenda; the shades of words are important in institutional policy.

The House also passed the allotment of a ridiculous sum within the Financial law which will have to be confirmed by the Senate, for the elaboration of a law on Homoeopathy.

The small sum is meaningful for it is proof that Parliament is convinced of the necessity and the urgency of a relative law.

This is already a step forward, the base from which to start which marks a change in respect of last year even if matters move very slowly.

I believe there is an instance of freedom and of different approach as regards non conventional medicine. Homoeopathy could be the key to a world of old tradition with more experience and more consideration from a commercial point of view.

As regards the different approach towards health, this unitary vision with nature, important for me belonging to the Greens, I must underline the importance of considering man within his environment.

As regards the experimentation mentioned by Doctor Rodriguez and in a different manner by Doctor Benveniste, I have some reserves on the fact of uniforming the experimental and research methods of Homoeopathy to the traditional methods of officila science even if it is necessary that experimentation in Homoeopathy be carried out with absolutely rigorous criteria.

In fact, for example, experimentation on animals, not accepted in Homoeopathy, is a true and proper basic error.

I believe that a first step is that of acknowledging Homoeopathic products and the regulations for a good and safe manufacture, but I fear that we cannot go any further because the problem is actually very complicated; it goes from training to distribution, to the National Health Service.

It is high time for a rapid intervention for rules on a safe manufacture of the products, but it is also high time we went further.

We of the Greens, have long been thinking of a Bill of Law, but the problems of vocational training and of the role of the chemist are no easy ones.

Unfortunately, in the absence of a regulation there is a fluorishing of many things, some positive, others negative.

As regards the role of the doctor and his exclusivity as homoeopath, I would like to investigate further: abroad, in Great Britain for example, there are several characters who have has an adequate training without being doctors. We could advance a hypothesis of homoeopathic therapist who is different from the homoeopathic doctor. According to me the problem is not so much forbidding things, but being very clear on what is not forbidden and giving consumers precise guarantees: one thing is the homoeopathic doctor, another thing is the homoeopathic therapist.

Another problem is that of training. Here too guarantees are necessary. I would rather trust a non doctor with three years training in Homoeopathy than a graduated doctor whose training is unknow.

The chemist too is a problem. No problem for selling these products at the chemist's and the chemist could even be allowed to manufacture the Homoeopathic Remedy himself as was the custom in olden times.

This is why I am not so sure we should delegate a decree to the Higher Institute for Health as regards the definition of production procedures, etc.. I believe that the law at issue delegates to much power to the above Institute.

According to me the basic points of the matter are the doctor's role, his training and the National Health Service: I do not believe that the homoeopathic doctor can be placed within the National Health Service because his relationship with patients is completely different to that of the normal doctor who considers his patient no more than part of the assembly chaim: the Homoeopathneeds time and this his financial budget cannot be established on the number of his patients.

We might provide for an indirect Health Assistance, considering it as a specialistic branch, even free of charge. All this could be accomplished with some form of state participation as regards Homoeopathy as well.