Yesterday, a physician asked my opinion if a patient needed
a colonoscopy. My partner was already on
the case and I was covering over the weekend.
The facts suggested that a colonoscopy was warranted. The patient had a low blood count and had
received blood transfusions. Certainly,
a bleeding site in the colon, such as a cancer, might be responsible. We do colonoscopies to address similar
circumstances on a regular basis.
Because to us, our medical judgment trumped the medical
facts. First, the patient was elderly
and extremely debilitated. The challenge
of having an individual in her state ingest the necessary laxatives is likely
insurmountable. If any readers have
enjoyed the delight of guzzling down a colonoscopy prep, contemplate doing so
as an elderly, ailing and bedbound individual.
I asked the physician if the patient’s family would consent
to surgery if a cancer was found.
“Absolutely not”, she responded.
Now there were two strikes against proceeding with a colonic
invasion. Beyond the near cruelty of the
laxative prep, if a cancer were found, then it would be left in place. So, why subject the patient to the risk and
indignity of a diagnostic test that would not help her?
Readers here with medical knowledge can offer hypothetical
diagnoses for this patient where a colonoscopy or scope exam of the esophagus
and stomach could make a difference. I acknowledge this. But, medicine is not a pure discipline like
mathematics. There are always exceptions
and we are never 100% sure of anything.
Regardless, I believe that the evidence against subjecting this patient
to scope examinations is beyond a reasonable doubt.
When a diagnostic test is being proposed to you, make sure
that it will make a meaningful difference in your care. Will it yield information that you and your
physician want to know or need to know?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMe again!
ReplyDelete