Colonoscopies and Roller Coasters - Common Ground

A recent article in Cleveland’s primary daily newspaper – which is still printed - discussed an intriguing issue.  An Ohio state representative has offered a bill that would require amusement parks to publicize online if any of their attractions are not running.  The bill is offered as a consumer protection measure to inform patrons of the status of park attractions before they travel distances and face pricey admission costs.  Folks will not be amused to arrive at an amusement park to discover that the ride that brought them there is out of order.  Do you think that a family who is notified at the ticket booth that the roller coaster of their dreams isn’t rolling will simply head back to the car head for home?  Imagine those happy kids in the back seat! “Hey kids, now we have time to go to the library and borrow some educational books!”

We’ll see if this proposed bill becomes law.  Amusement park owners may push back on what they feel is government encroachment, but I think a smarter play would be to enthusiastically welcome this new service to their customers.  Good will = more profits. Indeed, opposing such a measure risks, if not guarantees, alienating their customer base.

Out of Order?

There are other arenas where applying this same customer policy might be considered.

Should theater goers be advised in advance if any of the principal actors will be replaced by understudies?  

If a restaurant that is well known for its signature steak dish won’t have it available for their weekend customers because of a supply chain snafu, are salivating customers entitled to know this? 

If a furniture or appliance store offers an amazing deal in a newspaper ad, is it fair to the public if the stores had only 1 or 2 of these items available that were sold just after the stores opened?

Would you want to take your family on a day trip to a well known Museum of Natural History to discover that T-rex has been sidelined for maintenance?

You get the idea.

And because I write medical commentary, surely there’s a medical angle to all of this.  We confront this same issue on occasion in our endoscopy suite.  I do endoscopic procedures on two groups of patients:  those whom I have never met and those whom are my own patients.  Here’s an observation that is self-evident.  Patients prefer that their own gastroenterologists perform their procedures. They don't want a  stranger at the scope. This is not a ‘ride share’ experience when folks request a ride to be greeted by an unknown driver.  However, on occasion, an endoscopist will be suddenly unavailable to work and a covering gastroenterologist will step in to serve these patients, many of whim have completed the beloved laxative prep.

Are these patients entitled to know that a new doctor will be available to serve them?  Absolutely, and we make every effort to reach them so that patients have an option to reschedule.  Almost none of them do, but I believe that they have a right to know 

There are instances, however, when we simply cannot reach the patient who first learns of the physician change after they have arrived to the office.  Sometimes, patients shrug this off, but not always.  At times, we have had do engage in some damage control.

I don’t think that businesses face any obligation to inform customers of all manners of inventory shortages.  Do we expect office supply stores to blast out statements announcing that they are running short on yellow Sharpie pens?  Probably not.

But if a business or organization or even a doctor’s office won’t have available main events or players that draw folks there, then I think there should be disclosure.  If your gastroenterologist has been switched out with a stranger for your colonoscopy, then you have a right to know in advance that a new physician is on the scene.