Skip to main content

The Right to Refuse Medical Care - Saying 'No' to a Colonoscopy

An 85-year-old woman was referred to me because she was anemic.  She was accompanied by her son.  Anemia, meaning a decreased blood count, is a common reason that patients are sent to gastroenterologists.  The reason for this is that internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract – even silent bleeding – can cause anemia.  Gastroenterologists are always locked and loaded with our arsenal of scopes ready to probe into your digestive system in search of a bleeding lesion that would explain anemia.  While we are always hopeful that any discovery will be benign, at times the news is more serious. 

Just after I entered the exam room, the patient offered this declaration.

“I am not having a colonoscopy!”

I had not yet even introduced myself to her and her son, but she was determined to set the ground rules.  Of course, it should be the patient who determines her own future, but generally this occurs after some dialogue with a medical professional.  After all, this is why patients come to see us.  However, this octogenarian had managed to reach the age of 85 years intact, so clearly her personal ‘owner’s manual’ has guided her well.  You have to respect success.

I suggested to her wryly that she might at least have waited for me to recommend a colonoscopy before refusing one, but she clearly wanted to assert her autonomy and authority. I reassured her that if she persisted in refusing any recommended testing that I would support her decision. This response relaxed her as intended.  While she may have been prepared to scrap with me, I communicated my own ground rules that I would not be her adversary. 

My professional task is to educate, inform and to prioritize the options for my patients.  I am not the decision maker.  I do my best to equip patients with sufficient information so that they can make truly informed choices, even if I may personally disagree with the decision from a medical standpoint.

                                                  The Right to Refuse Medical Care - Saying 'No' to a Colonoscopy

                                                      A very clear message from my patient.


After reviewing this patient’s medical history and data, it was clear that a colonoscopy was medically necessary as I had concern that a malignancy – which could be curable – might be the culprit.  As part of the informed consent discussion, I also candidly with her the risks of declining diagnostic tests

With unwavering confidence, this woman expressed that she intended to be left alone.  No scope would be permitted to approach her.   We shook hands and I wished her well.

Over the years, I have come to appreciate more deeply how many elderly folks use different medical playbooks than younger people do.  Many times I have seen an elderly patient decline testing while her child who is present tries to change her mind.   In this example, two different playbooks are being used.

I did counsel the woman and her son that she needs to be a peace with her decision, regardless of unknown future medical developments.  Of course, she already knew this.  It’s in her playbook.  






Comments

  1. In similar circumstances I offer the patient an Air contrast BE. There is a good chance of picking up any lesion that would be a Cancer that is life threatening to an 85 year old person. A benign polyp would be another issue - some of it ethical. What is the likelihood that the polyp would progress to cancer before she died of 'natural causes'? A perforated colon could lead to major negative consequences for 'nothing'?

    Just a thought.

    An old gastroenerologist

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point! I can't recall the last time I ordered a barium enema. Interpreting them was an art, and I daresay a lost one as the imaging community has evolved far beyond barium. Appreciate your comment.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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,