From time to time, I arrange diagnostic testing to ease patients’ minds. “Could you scope my esophagus? My boss was just diagnosed with esophageal cancer.” “I know I’m not due for my colonoscopy for another 2 years. But I’d like to do it now just to be on the safe side. My wife is worried.” “No, the abdominal pain hasn’t changed since I had a CAT scan for it months ago, but maybe I should have another scan now just in case something new developed?” When these requests are offered, I do not automatically acquiesce. I try to understand better the genesis of the anxiety. Is it rationale? Is it emotional? Is there a true medical indication to justify a diagnostic test? I interpret requests for tests as invitations for dialogue. Very often, the ensuing conversation can settle the issue entirely obviating the patient’s testing request. These patients don’t really want a test; they want to be reassured. Physicians use these skills every day. I can’t count h
In the olden days, physicians had the dominant role in the doctor-patient relationship. During this era of medical paternalism, physicians gave their best medical advice and patients accepted it. If the gastroenterologist felt that his patient’s gallbladder had to go, for example, then surgery was sure to follow. Informed consent – as we now understand its meaning – was not fully practiced. Patients provided consent but were only partially informed. While medical paternalism has largely become extinct, and is inconsistent with today’s societal and medical mores, it was the template for medical practice until only decades ago. And while we regard the subjugation of patient autonomy to be a fundamental ethical breach, both physicians and patients during that era were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement. A patient came to the doctor with medical issues. The doctor -the medical professional - offered advice that the patient accepted. The patient’s condition improved, as