So we recently got some kittens, Taz and Pixel are their names, there’s a blog so if you like cute furry things go visit and leave some comments, Susie will be delighted.

Although my family has had cats for years it is always exciting getting your own pet for the first time. We have been reading up on various insurance policies, cat health websites about worms and fleas and all that stuff. What has dissapointed me is the amounts of woo prevalent in the pet world.

Take this website suggesting homeopathic remedies as worm treatment. People can catch worms from animals you know? This is REALLY bad advice.

But what pissed me off more than someone whistling in the office, (Seriously why are you whistling at all let alone in the office? Why, why would you do that? Stop it, stop it now before I rip your lips off) was insurance policies that covered alternative therapies. Why should I be paying for something that is utter nonsense?

I don’t know how many pet owners out there have insurance, if you don’t you really should, or if your policies cover alternative therapy, if they do they really shouldn’t, but for those of you that do have a policy I advise you to check it and is necessary write to your insurer to complain. Perhaps if enough of us do it then they might take notice.

Here is my letter to Pet Plan with hyperlinks added for your reference.    

Dear Pet Plan,

My partner and I have recently adopted two kittens from the Cats Protection Agency and so have been researching possible insurers. It is clear after shopping around that your policy is one of the better ones however I was very disappointed to see that as part of your plan you cover the cost of alternative treatments such as acupuncture and homeopathy. Since ‘alternative treatment’ is often synonymous with placebo or doesn’t work, as a potential customer I am concerned that the cost of your policies may be more expensive as a result of having to cover what is essentially other peoples’ delusions.

The breadth of evidence against these treatments is now extensive; Professor Edzard Ernst, the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, has critisised these treatments publically and often. In the American Journal of Medicine on homeopathy he said;

 ”Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine… These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect… To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (eg, Bach flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is therefore not an option.”

These treatments don’t work, that is why they are called alternative treatments and not medicine. This obviously means that alternative treatment programmes are drawn out, costly as a result and ultimately aren’t really doing anything. Inevitably, if the condition is serious enough, claimants eventually have to resort to real medicine. All of this puts the cost of the claim up and subsequently your premiums up.

While I appreciate that this view may not be taken by all, alternative treatment enthusiasts are evidentially wrong and if they wish to pay extra for an insurance policy that caters to their delusions then that is up to them. I do not think it should be part of your standard policy or at the very least there should be a way of opting out of this cover for those of us that prefer to live in the real world. Can you tell me if this is something you are considering?

I look forward to your response,

I will of course keep you updated should they respond.