Skeptics bent out of shape as cancer patients offered reiki

The Cancer Council of WA has earned a glare from the pedantic uncle of Australian science promoters.

---

Our West Australian friends love threatening to secede from the rest of the continent, and this spirit of secession runs strong at scales large and small.

Most recently we saw the rebellious WA branch split, albeit somewhat unintentionally, from the AMA.

Now the WA Cancer Council appears to have seceded from medical consensus reality as well as from its eastern seaboard colleagues.

The Australian Skeptics have nominated the western branch of our foremost cancer charity for its Bent Spoon pseudoscience award for offering cancer patients free complementary therapies including reiki and reflexology.

The Skeptics note that reiki and reflexology were recently removed from services covered by the NDIS, and that the NSW Cancer Council says there is “no reliable evidence that reiki has any benefits … [and] no scientific evidence of an energy field or that energy therapies have any benefits”.

The WACC (probably not the organisation’s preferred acronym) describes reiki as “laying on of hands” even though the practice often does not include actual contact.

“Research has found that the effect of Reiki can be demonstrated through changes to a recipient’s biology after they have received Reiki for 30 minutes,” it says, vaguely. “Changes to biological markers suggest that Reiki can contribute to a decrease in anxiety and an increase in relaxation.

“Anecdotal evidence from recipients is that Reiki provides a deep sense of calm and relaxation, often helping people to relieve perception of pain, reduce nausea, fatigue and insomnia and leading to a perception of improved quality of life.”

Reflexology the WACC describes as “a form of foot and hand massage, based on the belief that certain points on the feet and hands correspond to the body’s internal organs and systems, like a map. The principle of Reflexology is that through pressure on these reflex points, it stimulates the body to work toward better health.”

The evidence: “Clinical trials have shown that reflexology reduces pain and anxiety and helps improve quality of life, particularly for those receiving palliative care.”

No citations are given, though the branch has also published a whole guide to complementary medicines covering mind-body techniques, body-based practices, energy therapies, therapies based on herbs and plants and those based on diet. Here it outlines the medical philosophies based on meridians, qi and the Ayurvedic doshas with cursory assessments of the strength of the evidence for them, citing three journal articles. There is “no reliable scientific evidence” for homeopathy, you’ll be glad to know.

On the national Cancer Council page about complementary therapies – which it distinguishes from “alternative” therapies – the following are listed under “What complementary therapies help cancer patients?”

• Touch therapies involve working with the physical body and include acupuncture, aromatherapy, reflexology and massage.
• Mind body therapies are designed to enhance the mind’s capacity to affect the body’s function and symptoms and include meditation, guided imagery and hypnosis.
• Talking therapies offer emotional support. This can be one-on-one with a trained counsellor, or in a group …
• Lifestyle approaches such as a healthy diet and regular exercise may help you feel better or help to relieve symptoms such as fatigue.

What’s the harm?

The two main objections to the promotion of poorly evidenced therapies is that they may supplant evidence-backed treatments or that they cost money that vulnerable patients can ill afford.

By clearly labelling these modalities as add-ons and making them free to patients, the Cancer Council of WA avoids these charges. You could still argue that any money the charity is spending on these services could probably be better spent elsewhere, but it’s still some improvement on exploiting patients directly.

As it says in its guide, “Australia’s cultural diversity means some people may want to use traditional healing practices as part of their complementary cancer care.”

The Back Page is pretty staunchly skeptical of such practices, given their lack of correlates in the body as understood in the modern era and the often sub-par science that finds in their favour.

But even we are struggling to mock or sin-bin the WACC for providing add-ons that some patients will otherwise seek out at their own expense, and which might provide some relief or comfort, however fleeting and subjective, during an unpleasant time.

It hardly seems fair, but for some patients non-medical treatments seem to fill a gap that medicine can’t.

The winner of the Bent Spoon will be announced at Skepticon, the Skeptics’ annual convention, in Sydney, 23-24 November.

Send evidence-based story tips to penny@medicalrepublic.com.au.