Scientific assembly update: paediatrics in Vienna

The aim of this update is to describe, in the context of the current literature, major papers from the seven groups of the Paediatric Assembly (Respiratory Physiology; Asthma and Allergy; Cystic Fibrosis; Respiratory Infection and Immunology; Neonatology and Paediatric Intensive Care; Respiratory Epidemiology; and Bronchology) presented during the European Respiratory Society's annual meeting held in 2012 in Vienna, Austria.

Additive homeopathy in cancer patients: Retrospective survival data from a homeopathic outpatient unit at the Medical University of Vienna

Background: Current literature suggests a positive influence of additive classical homeopathyon global health and well-being in cancer patients. Besides encouraging case reports, thereis little if any research on long-term survival of patients who obtain homeopathic care duringcancer treatment. Design: Data from cancer patients who had undergone homeopathic treatment complementaryto conventional anti-cancer treatment at the Outpatient Unit for Homeopathy in MalignantDiseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria, were collected,described and a retrospective subgroup-analysis with regard to survival time was performed.Patient inclusion criteria were at least three homeopathic consultations, fatal prognosis ofdisease, quantitative and qualitative description of patient characteristics, and survival time. Results: In four years, a total of 538 patients were recorded to have visited the OutpatientUnit Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria. 62.8% of them were women, and nearly 20% had breast cancer. From the 53.7%(n = 287) who had undergone at least three homeopathic consultations within four years, 18.7%(n = 54) fulfilled inclusion criteria for survival analysis. The surveyed neoplasms were glioblas-toma, lung, cholangiocellular and pancreatic carcinomas, metastasized sarcoma, and renal cellcarcinoma. Median overall survival was compared to expert expectations of survival outcomesby specific cancer type and was prolonged across observed cancer entities (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Extended survival time in this sample of cancer patients with fatal prognosis butadditive homeopathic treatment is interesting. However, findings are based on a small sample,and with only limited data available about patient and treatment characteristics. The relationshipbetween homeopathic treatment and survival time requires prospective investigation in largersamples possibly using matched-pair control analysis or randomized trials.

Seals and the Need for more Deference to Vienna by WTO Adjudicators

This paper asks how World Trade Organization (WTO) panels and the Appellate Body (AB) take public international law (PIL) into account when interpreting WTO rules as a part of international economic law (IEL). Splendid isolation of the latter is not new; indeed it is intended by the negotiators of the Understanding on the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). At the same time, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is quite clear when it provides the general rules and the supplementary means of treaty interpretation. Despite such mandatory guidance, WTO adjudicators (when given a choice and assuming they see the conflict) prefer deference to WTO law over deference to Vienna and take a dogmatic way out of interpretation quandaries. The AB and panels make abundant reference to Vienna, though less so to substantive PIL. Often times, however, they do so simply in order to buttress their findings of violations of WTO rules. Perhaps tellingly, however, none of the reports in EC – Seals contains even a single mention of VCLT, despite numerous references to international standards addressing indigenous rights and animal welfare. In the longer term, and absent a breakthrough on the negotiation front, this pattern of carefully eschewing international treaty law and using PIL just for the sake of convenience could have serious consequences for the credibility and acceptance of the multilateral trading system. Following the adage ‘negotiate or litigate’ recourse to WTO dispute settlement increases when governments are less ready to make treaty commitments commensurate with the challenges of globalisation. This is true even for ‘societal choice’ cases on the margins of classic trade disputes. We will argue here that it is precisely for cases such as these that VCLT and PIL should be used more systematically by panels and the AB. Failing that, instead of building bridges for more coherent international regulation, WTO adjudicators could burn those same bridges which the DSU interpretation margin leaves open for accomplishing their job which is to find a ‘positive solution’. Worse, judicial incoherence could return to WTO dispute settlement like a boomerang and damage the credibility and thus the level of acceptance of the multilateral trading system per se.