'Doctor, What Would You Do?'

There’s a phrase that every physician hears repeatedly from patients, that requires a nuanced response.

Doctor, what would you do if you were me?

There are variations on this inquiry, such as ‘what would you do if I were your father’, but they all are aiming at the same target. The patient, or often the patient’s family, asks the doctor what advice the physician would choose if he were in the patient’s place. For example, if the physician were the patient would he opt for:

Surgery
Chemotherapy
Experimental treatment
Watchful waiting
A second opinion
A third opinion
Alternative medicine
Acupuncture
Hospice

'Doctor, what would you do?

Patients erroneously believe that this form of inquiry is the magic bullet of finding out what the physician’s truly best advice is for a particular medical circumstance. After all, if the doctor would recommend a treatment for his own mom, then surely this must be the best option.

Except, it isn’t. Here’s why.

Physicians, as members of the human species, cannot be as objective with regard their own families or themselves as they are with their own patients. This is why wise physicians do not treat family members. Indeed, every physician has heard vignettes of inferior care that was rendered by a doctor to a close family member. The reasons for this are beyond what I can express here, but the core of the explanation is tainted physician judgement resulting in delayed diagnoses and incorrect treatments. When a close relative recently approached me to discuss recurrent stomach aches, I gave her good advice. Make an appointment with a doctor.

Another circumstance when physicians are known to provide inferior care secondary to judgement lapses is when the doctor is treating a celebrity or VIP.

If you ask your doctor what he would do if he were you, the doctor’s response should be an explanation of why he can’t give you the answer you seek.

Comments

Why This Doctor Gave Up Telemedicine

During the pandemic, I engaged in telemedicine with my patients out of necessity. This platform was already destined to become part of the medical landscape even prior to the pandemic. COVID-19 accelerated the process. The appeal is obvious. Patients can have medical visits from their own homes without driving to the office, parking, checking in, finding their way to the office, biding time in the waiting room and then driving out afterwards. And patients could consult physicians from far distances, even across state lines. Most of the time invested in traditional office visits occurs before and after the actual visits. So much time wasted! Indeed, telemedicine has answered the prayers of time management enthusiasts. At first, I was also intoxicated treating patients via cyberspace, or telemedically, if I may invent a term. I could comfortably sink into my own couch in sweatpants as I guided patients through the heartbreak of hemorrhoids and the distress of diarrhea. Clear

Am I Spreading Covid-19 Misinformation?

I presume that most of us are hostile to hate speech, misinformation and disinformation. Politicians and others want social media to be scrubbed of all nefarious postings. Twitter is most recently in the crosshairs on this issue after Elon Musk assumed ownership of the company. They still haven’t settled on a moderation policy. Social media and other information sources have been accused of radicalizing Americans, fostering hate, undermining our elections, providing a forum for bullies and predators, promoting division and coarsening our national discourse. One man’s cleansing of disinformation is another man’s censorship. There is some speech that all reasonable people would agree should be banned, such as incitement to violence or prurient matter that children can access. I challenge those who advocate against publishing hate speech, misinformation or disinformation to offer precise definitions of these categories. Trust me, this is no easy endeavor. And if you are

Whistleblower Grand Rounds Vol. 6 No. 22: It’s ‘Alimentary’, Doctors!

It’s been a while since I’ve attended a conventional medical Grand Rounds. These were events where a medical luminary would fly in to give a medical audience a state-of-the-art presentation on a medical subject. Ideally, the speaker was a thought leader and a researcher on the issue. These presentations were usually not a demonstration of the virtue of humility. We physicians, as a class, have generous egos. Academic physicians occupy a higher rung on the ego ladder. Medical Grand Rounders (MGRs), who are on the GR speaking circuit, often must bring their own ladders to assure they will be able to reach their desired atmospheric height. Jacob’s Ladder Photo Credit At least in the old days, before the GR speaker would assume his position behind the rostrum, a designated pre-speaker would offer an introduction. The audience would hear a list of awards, achievements, journal editorial positions, department chairmanships, honorary degrees, publications and book chapter authorships,

MD Whistleblower

Search This Blog