Skip to main content

Patients Who Drink Too Much

When I am facing an alcoholic in the office, I do not advise him to stop drinking.  Other physicians may advocate a different approach.  We live in a free society and individuals are free to make their own choices.  I have decided, for example, not to own a firearm, ride a motorcycle or bungee jump as these activities are not only beyond my risk tolerance threshold, but are also activities that I have decided would not enrich my life.  Many smokers, though addicted, enjoy the experience and are aware of the risks of this activity. 

Preparing One for the Road

My responsibility as a physician is to inform and counsel, not to lecture or preach.  I tell alcoholics with clear candor the medical risks they face if they decide to maintain this lifestyle.  I advise them that if they wish to aspire to sobriety, that I will refer them to appropriate professionals for treatment.  I further inform them that in my decades of experience, very few alcohol addicts can quit on their own, despite their vigorous declarations that they can do so.  Finally, I tell them that if they decide to venture on the difficult journey away from wine and spirits, that I will be there at every step to assist and encourage them.  However, there is no hectoring or finger-wagging from me.  No threats or intimidation – which never work anyway - just cold facts and honest predictions.  The patient is then free to make his decision, as he is with any medical proposal.

Patients aren't obligated to accept my advice.  Indeed, the bedrock concept of informed consent places the authority of the decision where it properly resides, with the patient.  

Alcoholsim is an insidious disease whose tentacles slowly suffocate the addict and causes many friendly fire casualties.  Yes, I am aware that there may be a genetic predisposition to the illness, but at some point the decision to drink was still a choice.  Ultimately, only the afflicted one can cast off the chains. 

What do you think?  Am I derelict by not delivering an energetic exhortation, “You’ve got to stop your drinking!”  Is it my job to tell patients what to do, or to give them a fair presentation of their options so that they can choose for themselves?  

Comments

  1. Agree with you on informed consent and your approach. Lectures never work.
    I have personally concluded that many addictive behaviors are at root due to some sort of adverse childhood experience, and my own life supported this, so I'm admittedly biased. gabor mate has some books/research regarding this.
    Best,
    Mc

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fully agree with your informed consent approach. I bet you "converted" more patients then doctors who constantly force patients to stop.

    I am very interested in this - do you saying "very few alcohol addicts can quit on their own" to tickle motivation or just as a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talking about stopping has little impact on alcoholics who do one thing extremely well; they are experts at denial. Talking about sparing them the pain of harming others in a car accident, or during domestic violence, or by bankrupting the family so children go hungry may help the person see the error of their ways. They have the right to harm themselves but not others. If this does not work, then asking them whether their family would be better off without them may make them either quit or commit suicide. Happily one is an improvement for all concerned but sadly the other is still an improvement for all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Having practiced addiction medicine for over 20 years I agree with your approach. It fits with what we have learned about the stages of change. One of the factors that helps an addict change is a sense of being emotionally connected to someone who is sober. Your approach creates the opportunity for them to make such a connection with you. A lecturing approach leaves no such opportunity. Your approach therefore increases the probability that the person using alcohol will reduce or stop. Thanks for posting on this topic.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary