When I wrote my open letter to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) calling for a ban on the treatment of animals with homeopathic remedies, I hoped it would offer an opportunity for my colleagues in the veterinary profession to stand up for evidence-based veterinary care. Now, with more 1,000 vets lending their names to the letter as I submit it to the RCVS, along with hundreds of veterinary nurses and students, it’s time for our professional body to take our concerns seriously.

The case against homeopathy has never been clearer, with every well-controlled study showing that these remedies are no more effective than a sugar pill – which is no surprise, considering that the vast majority of homeopathic treatments contain no active substances at all.



Many people think homeopathy remedies are essentially herbal remedies, but they can be based on anything from herbs to animal products, or from minerals to X-rays. More importantly, herbalists believe that the larger the dose of herb, the larger the effect, whereas the central belief of homeopathy is that substances get more powerful the more dilute they are. In short, even when the initial ingredient is a herb, there is no herb left by the time dilution has been completed and the homeopathic ‘remedy’ is ready to be used.



As a 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy concluded, homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are “scientifically implausible”.



While the NHS finally appears to be ending support for homeopathy, with clinical commissioning groups around the country ending funding for homeopathy services and the Department of Health reviewing whether to blacklist the treatments completely, sadly it appears no such progress has been made in the veterinary world. It isn’t hard to find vets willing to prescribe these ineffective remedies to sick animals, and the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons claims that homeopathy can be used to treat cancer in dogs.



Although homeopathy supporters often like to paint themselves as the little guys, standing up to the powerful lobby of an evil pharmaceutical industry, in reality homeopathy has friends in extremely high places. Earlier this year, Prince Charles claimed he exclusively uses homeopathic remedies when treating his cows and sheep, advising scientists that the treatments represent a solution to the growing problem of antibiotic overuse. While I commend his recognition of the dangers presented by the overprescription of antibiotics, his proposed solution demonstrates a deep ignorance of the realities of veterinary medicine.

I have no doubt that Prince Charles, along with my colleagues in the veterinary profession who do prescribe homeopathy, has nothing but the best of intentions. Unfortunately, being well-intentioned and deluded is no substitute for being right, especially when the cost of being wrong can be all too high.

As a vet, there are few things more heartbreaking than having to pick up the pieces after an animal has received inadequate care. Unfortunately, too many times in my career I’ve been presented with an animal whose perfectly treatable condition has been left to deteriorate, because their owners and vets were convinced that homeopathic remedies would do the trick. At best, it leads to unnecessary suffering and a reduced likelihood of a full recovery. At worst, as with the case of a horse I treated for severe laminitis, there is no option left but euthanasia.



Having to put down an animal who would likely have lived a long and healthy life had they been given the correct treatment is something no vet would relish. What is deeply frustrating is that there is no real way for an animal’s owner to judge whether the advice they receive from a qualified vet is based on sound research or, in the case of homeopathy, personal belief that flies in the face of evidence. The public rightly place their trust in veterinary surgeons, reasoning that our medical knowledge is the result of years of study and training at formally accredited institutions, and based on sound research.



For the veterinary profession to retain the trust of the general public, we have to ensure that the treatments that we offer are, to the best of our ability, based in evidence. As the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK, it is the duty of the RCVS to monitor the ethical and clinical standards of our profession – clearly, the promotion of demonstrably ineffective treatments is not compatible with these standards.



As the RCVS considers its response to our letter, they must bear in mind that a failure to end the prescription of homeopathic remedies in animal care is an implicit endorsement of these treatments. It would therefore also be an implicit acceptance of vets who place animal welfare at risk by putting their personal beliefs ahead of evidence-based medicine and the body of knowledge our profession has accrued. I sincerely hope that does not happen, and that the RCVS chooses instead to heed this call from more than 1,000 vets and end the use of these ineffective treatments once and for all.