Sunday, July 27, 2014

When Doctors Break the Law

I’m a law abiding blogger.  Laws are meant to be obeyed.  If an individual opposes a law in a free country, then he should operate within the system to modify it.  I recognize that even in free societies, certain laws are so unjust and in violation of natural law that that the citizenry may be justified in relying upon other measures to affect necessary reform.  I’m not suggesting that an unwelcome federal tax on gasoline be greeted with pitchforks in the street.  However, our own democracy is a nation where slavery, ‘separate but equal’, exclusive male suffrage and Jim Crow discrimination were all legal.  In such cases, can we expect a legislature to strike down unjust laws that it enacted?

Law and medicine are increasingly intertwined today, and more than they should be.   Physicians no longer practice unfettered from legal encroachments and regulations.  I am not referring here to the unfair medical malpractice system, a subject that has occupied a substantial portion of real estate on this blog.  Look what Obamacare has wrought and what it threatens to do in the future?  Private practice medicine – my gig - for example, will either be declared illegal or will be deprived of oxygen and put to sleep.

Let's Make Breast Cancer Illegal

The most ludicrous intersections between law and medicine are when legislators try to play doctor for crass political reasons.   This is nonsensical as even trained physicians can’t agree about medical testing and treatment.  Medical experts, for example, are not of one mind on when mammography should be offered and at what intervals.  I don’t fault our profession for failing to achieve a consensus here.  The science behind the issue is not certain and differing and valid interpretations are expected.  I admit here that some of these physician opinions may be politically tainted for reasons of self-interest, but even non-partisan and objective medical experts may simply interpret data differently. 

When there is an important controversy in medicine, it should be addressed by additional medical research or accepting an interim position based on the views of medical professionals.

So do you think that the mammography controversy should be settled by doctors or a legislator submitting a bill that mandates mammography coverage starting at age 40?

If we allowed it, politicians would pass all kinds of medical care treatment and testing laws to curry favor with various interests groups.  This might be good fertilizer to cultivate some votes, but is this how we want the practice of medicine to advance?

Ohio passed a law earlier this year that would require physicians to inform women facing mastectomy about options for breast reconstruction.  The aim of the bill is to assure women that future reconstruction would be a covered insurance benefit so that they would be more likely to accept mastectomy. 

Of course, I want these women to be informed of the reconstruction option.  Indeed, this is the responsibility of the treating physician.  I object, however, to a law that requires it.  For those who support such a law, why only breasts?  Surely, laws could be passed affecting every medical specialist and every organ of the body mandating certain medical advice.    I advise my patients who have reached the 50 year mark that they should pursue colon cancer screening.   I don’t think a law should be passed mandating this conversation, but it’s no stretch to imagine a pontificating populist politician from trying to do so.   I’m not taking any chances.  I’m buying a pitchfork, just in case.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

When Should Doctors Turn Patients Away?

A few days before this writing, a 32-year-old woman came to see me for an opinion on stomach pain.  Why would I refuse to see her again?  Abdominal pain is an everyday occurrence for a gastroenterologist.  She was accompanied by her mother.  I had never met this woman previously. 

She had suffered abdominal pains for as long as she could remember.   She recalled frequent visits with the school nurse when she was a young girl.

Illu stomach.jpg

The Stomach - Usually Not the Source of 'Stomach Pain'

She has abdominal distress of varying severity every single day. Despite this medical history, she was not ill and appeared well. Why did I refuse to take on her case?   She seemed like a very appropriate patient for my practice.  I have expertise in evaluating and treating abdominal pain.  The patient was pleasant and cooperative.   I believe she would have been comfortable with me as her gastroenterologist.

I learned that the patient lived in another state and was only in Cleveland to spend the holidays with her family.  In fact, she was leaving Ohio the day after my visit with her.   I advised her that it was not in her medical interest to have a chronic condition managed by a physician hundreds of miles away. 

Sure, I have some folks in the practice who live in other parts of the country, but I don’t manage their chronic conditions.   These people return to Cleveland with some regularity, and I will do their periodic routine colonoscopies.    Conversely, if one of my patients with active Crohn’s disease is off to Arizona to escape the oppressive Cleveland winter, I insist that he consult with a gastroenterologist there.

I know we are entering the era of telemedicine.   I certainly do a lot of medicine on the phone every day, and many evenings.  But, for many medical issues, there is no substitute – nor should there be – for a face to face visit with a doctor.   Chronic abdominal pain, particularly in a new patient, can’t be solved in a visit or two.   It takes serial office visits over time to deeply grasp the patient’s symptoms and understand the patient as a person.    It needs regular physical examinations, which is a crucial piece of data for the doctor that can’t yet be acquired through cyberspace.

Managing chronic disease is a wandering journey for the patient and physician with unforeseen pitfalls and challenges.  Such a patient may awaken one morning with new symptoms or a flare in his condition and may need to see a doctor on that very day.   Even when the patient’s condition is relatively stable, there may be phone calls in between visits, or phone calls to determine the necessity of an office appointment.

So, I didn’t cure her in a half hour, but I did offer her advice.  I recommended that she select a gastroenterologist where she lived.   I forecasted the conversations  that I anticipated she and the new doctor might have over the ensuing months.   She and her mom understood why local medical care was the proper option for her. 

Maybe eventually, my iPhone will have an app that can palpate an abdomen, discern body language and gauge if a patient ‘looks sick’.   Until then, for most patients I will rely upon my eyes, my hands and my gut. 

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Hobby Lobby vs Obamacare: 1-0

Hobby Lobby, unfairly demonized in various corners of the public square, had their religious beliefs upheld in the highest court of the land in a 5-4 decision this week.   The company’s leaders are deeply believing Christians, which I believe is still a lawful practice in this country.  The company tithes to charity and pays its full time employees at least $14.00 hourly, both evidence of a culture of compassion and fair play.

No, not these Supremes, the other ones.

There is a din of shrill protestations that the company is against contraception and women, which is a complete falsehood.   Hobby Lobby is not the Catholic Church who objects to all forms of artificial birth control as fundamental religious dogma.  The company always intended to cover 16 different forms of contraception, including oral contraceptives, condoms and tubal ligation.  It objects to birth control methods that take action after an embryo has been created.

I don’t grasp the notion that an institution that approves 16 different methods of contraception is against contraception or is posing an undue burden on women, although I admit that I view this issue through the lens of an XY chromosomal organism.   Might the arguments against Hobby Lobby’s beliefs have a political basis that is beyond the substance of the issue?

Although I recognize that the Affordable Care Act mandates coverage of all 20 birth control methods, in the medical universe that I inhabit, insurance companies do not cover every available treatment for every malady.  For example, a particular insurance plan may cover heartburn prescriptions, but not every one of them.

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court decision affects only closely held, for-profit companies, which affects only a small fraction of American working women. 

I personally believe that women who work at Hobby Lobby have a right to the 4 methods of birth control that the company objects to, including intrauterine devices and ‘morning after’ pills.  However, when I weigh the rights of the owners, who have a lifelong and deep Christian belief that forbids these practices, I am persuaded that their religious freedom argument is stronger.   If they had lost the case, they would be complicit in a practice that they find to be sinful and abhorrent.  If they prevailed, as was the case, Hobby Lobby female employees would still have access to numerous forms of birth control.

The Obama administration in its zeal to impose health mandates, has underestimated the resistance from groups and individuals who guard their personal freedoms and liberties with equal zeal.  This governmental myopia has led them to some uncomfortable crossroads, such as their pending litigation against the Little Sisters of the Poor, who will not accept the government’s accommodation to their objection to contraceptive coverage.   I would be reluctant to sue a group of nuns who are respected all over the world for their selfless, charitable endeavors.

I’m not sure I’m right on the Hobby Lobby issue.  Four Supreme Court Justices, all great legal scholars, think I am wrong.   The 5-4 decision is proof that this was no legal slam dunk.   Additionally, a different set of justices may very well have decided the case differently.  Yet, I feel that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties who joined with them in this case, had more to lose than women had to gain. 

I am neither pro-life nor Christian.  I’m a political moderate who has voted for candidates from both major political parties.   I’ve never even seen a Hobby Lobby store, but I’d like to meet the owners.  Are they warriors in the war against woman or freedom fighters for individual liberty?  I think the Court got it right. 

Sunday, July 6, 2014

The Fourth of July - Musings on the Declaration.

The meaning of many holidays can be elusive.  On Memorial Day, are we contemplating our fallen heroes, or grilling burgers?  How many shopping days ‘til Christmas?  Labor Day?  Isn’t that the last weekend at the beach?

The Fourth of July has just passed.   Hopefully, we paused at least for a few moments to meditate on what happened in Philadelphia in 1776. 

I’ve seen the actual Declaration twice in my life.  The first time was when my mom took me to D.C. as a young child.  Later, I took the kids to the National Archives, where we waited in a long line to be rewarded with a few second gaze at the very faded ink that was sequestered behind thick glass.

History is such a thrill.  It’s a dynamic discipline that breathes.  This past week, a scholar from Princeton, New Jersey claims that a punctuation mark – a period – does not appear on the original parchment, but was included in the official transcript of the Declaration authorized by the National Archives.  The omission of the period casts a different slant on the sentence that begins with the iconic phrase, We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Fifty-six men signed the document.  Here are their concluding words to King George III.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, Our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.  

We owe a debt that can never be repaid.  

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Are Your Medical Priorities Straight?

The world is asunder.  As I write this, Iraq is sinking into a sectarian abyss.  ISIS, a terrorist group, now controls a larger territory than many actual countries.  Russia has swallowed Crimea and has her paw prints all over eastern Ukraine.  China is claiming airspace and territories in Southeast Asia increasing tensions with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.  The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in another deep freeze.  Terrorists in Sudan and Nigeria are kidnapping and murdering innocents with impunity.  The Syrian regime has resulted in 160,000 deaths and has displaced over 6 million people.   The Taliban continue to destabilize and terrorize in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Disease and hunger claim millions of lives in the developing world while other world regions have a surplus of food and medicine.  We have an immigration crisis in this country that gets worse by the day.  Several million Americans are still out of work.

Let’s not be distracted by these trifles.  A looming apocalypse exists that dwarfs the above issues and demands our overriding attention.

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

Sometimes, folks have difficulty deciding what’s important.   

Weigh the priorities

Assigning rational priorities is an important professional and life skill.  Collectively, we all waste an incalculable amount of time, energy and resources pursuing ventures that should be left for another day.  All of us do this.   Sometimes, we do so deliberately when a lower priority activity will deliver some pleasure or entertainment.   In these instances, at least we are aware that we are dipping down on our priority list.
An important physician skill is to judge which medical issues and tests should have a priority status.  Hmmm, a patient suffering a heart attack also has athlete's foot.  Which issue do I address first? We would recognize that a patient recovering from a severe pneumonia in an intensive care unit should not undergo a mammogram or a screening colonoscopy.  Often, it is not so easy to determine the medical priorities and different physician specialists on the case may disagree on what should be the next step.

Here are a few hypothetical scenarios.

A surgeon insists that an operation is urgently required, but the cardiologist counters that stabilizing the patient’s congestive heart failure must be done first. 

A gastroenterologist advises stopping a blood thinner as the patient has a bleeding ulcer, while the pulmonologist disagrees as the patient has a new pulmonary embolus and argues that the blood thinner cannot be interrupted.

A patient comes to his internist very anxious over 3 days of rectal bleeding.  He wants a colonoscopy as soon as possible as his father had colon cancer.   The physician advises instead evaluating the patient’s recent episodes of chest tightness, which the patient dismisses as anxiety.

Knowing how to do something well is not nearly as important as knowing if and when it should be done at all.  Who wants to have his gallbladder flawlessly removed if it didn't need to come out?  You can substitute any surgery, medical procedure, diagnostic test or treatment in this example.  

Medical knowledge is important.  Technical procedural proficiency is necessary.  Communication skills are a distinguishing asset.  But, medical judgment is paramount.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Standards of Decency in the Blogosphere

A few weeks back, I posted a piece entitled, Are Emergency Rooms Admitting Too Many Patients?   The essay was cross posted on KevinMD’s site a week or so after it appeared on my blog.  I received buckshot style criticism from various corners of cyberspace on my post.  What provoked particular ire, was my implication that Emergency Department physicians faced financial conflicts of interest with regard to admitting patients into the hospital.  

I’m open to criticism and debate in the blogosphere and in my own life.  My father was an attorney and my brother is a sitting judge.  I’ve raised my kids to question, argue and to seek out the other sides of issues despite that they may already feel that they grasp them sufficiently.  Now, that they are adults, I am often the target of these skills that I worked so hard to cultivate in them. 

Numerous physicians were offended by my reimbursement implication.  In reading their responses, it was clear to me that I was not sufficiently informed on how ED physicians are reimbursed.  In my comment on Kevin’s blog, I indicated that I was prepared to stand down from these particular statements that had caused a cyberconflagration.   I didn’t double down; I stood down.

My blog has been alive for 5 years and has over 300 posts.  With one exception, I have authored every essay and they all appear under my own name.   The blog is commentary, not immutable truth.  I expect and welcome vigorous debate, either because a reader has a different point of view or simply believes that I am wrong on the facts.  As a member of the human species, I commit error with some regularity.  Presumably, readers face this same reality.

I was disappointed that some who opposed me spewed forth venomous personal attacks against me both as a physician and as a person.  Demeaning comments and character attacks, in my view, only demean the source of the vitriol, not the target.  Many comments were ad hominem thrusts that contributed little to the civil dialogue that should have ensued from my post.  Indeed, one commenter complained that Kevin deleted his comment, and I have every reason to suspect that this decision was warranted.   I let all comments on my own site stand without revision.

As readers of my blog and others in my life know, I will not engage in this coarse caliber of discourse. 

It's easier to make noise than...

The notion, as was suggested in a vituperative riposte, that I am focusing attention on the incivility of some dissenters because I am bereft of a substantive response is false.  In contrast, I suspect that the converse is true.  Shrill and strident views are often hurled when the case is weak.   Let the argument rise or fall on its own merit.  Turning up the volume only turns off the debate.  

If you disagree with me, bring it on.  If my facts are wrong, point it out and I will readily admit it. If you charge me with having human imperfections and frailty, then no trial will be needed as I will confess to this outright.    If I have miscalculated or misfired in an essay or elsewhere, I would hope that a reader would consider the totality of my work before disparaging me in an unseemly manner.  

If I err, as I did in my post, then I will say so.  If I disagree with you, then I will explain why.  If you have the better argument, then I will change my mind.

I believe that conversations, discussions and debates in the blogosphere and beyond should occur with respect, tolerance and fair-mindedness.    If you have a different view on this style of expression, then make your case.

Words matter.   They are the tools we use to present our ideas to others.   Shouldn’t we choose them with care?