My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« Autism: Seeking a Cure vs Seeking Greater Ability and Acceptance | Main | Homeopathy: April 10 Marks the Beginning of a Lot of Foolishness »

Thursday, April 05, 2012


Kylie Sturgess

But it's NOT the facts, certainly not as they currently stand in legal parlance.
The Australian courts did NOT rule that she was killed. The State Coroner said in the link you give at
'Mr Hope said that while Dr Dingle had been an active participant in his wife's decision-making "ultimately the decisions were those of the deceased. The deceased paid a terrible price for poor decision-making."'

I can understand why this has now resulted in legal proceedings, as you cannot make blog-post judgments like that without the potential ramifications. It's up to the courts, not bloggers.

Michael Simpson


I think that the point here is that Scrayen pretended to be a medical practitioner, when she most certainly isn't. If she thinks a bottle of water can cure rectal cancer, and not urge her "patient" to seek other advice, just in case, then she is guilty of depraved indifference to human life. That is a crime. Scrayen is, at a minimum, guilty of gross unethical behavior. In either case, she should be charged with a felony and tossed in prison for as long as the Australian legal system can keep her.

I do not know or understand the British/Australian legal system with regards to free speech. In the US, as long as we don't call Scrayen a murderer (which I'll assume she isn't), and if we use public information, we're mostly safe. You should read up on Stanislaw Burzynski and his clinic. He tried to suppress bloggers. That didn't go over well.

And since Australian courts don't have a shot at getting to me here, I'm going to call out Francine Scrayen as an unethical homeopath (kind of redundant) who had a depraved view of human life.


Incorrect: "Scrayen pretended to be a medical practitioner, when she most certainly isn't."

-- In Australia as wel as in Europe classical homeopathy is licensed, regulated and legal and they are therefore definitely medical practitioners. Whatever your opinion about homeopathy may be, that doesn't change the fact that it has been recognized by governments in several countries around the world as a valid therapeutic form. Therefore your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion, if not hyperbole. Free speech does indeed also protect talking nonsene.

Another major mistake in your narrative: Mrs Dingle wrote heartbreaking letters... and the detail you ignore - but she never sent them... Why? Why not?

Mrs Scrayen is too easy a target in this story that is a bit more complicated than your standard homeopathy is quackery, let's get rid of it.

Several people made several choices and all had their own personal responsability. A bit more balance might go a long way, if you even so much as care about the truth.

 me too

Dear Me.
Please describe how homeopathy in Australia is licensed and regulated. It's self-regulated, which is different from effective regulation.

Homeopaths therefore CAN decide to treat cancer, because there are no constraints on their practice (the Australian homeopathy peak body has been almost completely silent on the Dingle case). When they decide to treat cancer, their patients are highly likely to end up dead. Hopefully the civil case will set a major precedent so homeopaths stop claiming to be able to treat anything vaguely life-threatening.

anarchic teapot

Ah, so "me" is the duty Scrayen shill?

Dear "me": my profession is also licenced, regulated and legal. Does that make me a medical practitioner too?


In the USA, Scrayen could have been sued for "medical malpractice" under this legal criteria:

"A duty was owed: a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient.

"A duty was breached: the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard care.

"The breach caused an injury: The breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury.

"Damage: Without damage (losses which may be pecuniary or emotional), there is no basis for a claim, regardless of whether the medical provider was negligent. Likewise, damage can occur without negligence, for example, when someone dies from a fatal disease."

Dave Davis

@ "me",
You write: "Mrs Dingle wrote heartbreaking letters... and the detail you ignore - but she never sent them... Why? Why not?"
Have you considered the possibility that Mrs Dingle was more than a little unwell, and that she had other priorities?
You also write: "Mrs Scrayen is too easy a target in this story".
No, Scrayen is still alive. Mrs Dingle would be the easy target, as she is unable to answer for herself now. Hence the widespread anger.

Private Schools Australia

The blog is very interesting. I read the full blog and must say the subject of the blog is very fascinating. Keep up the good work. I would love to read more of your articles.

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter