Odd Thought
I just had this kind of weird thought while reading an article on why you should constantly question your doctor.
I used to see commercials for medical journals that doctors could subscribe to in order to "keep abreast of new developments in medicine." The article I'm reading now mentions this guy who passed a kidney stone, and then asked his doctor how the stone could have been prevented in the first place. The doctor told him to cut back on the calcium. The guy researched this, and discovered that actually an INCREASE in calcium (not the pill form) has been found to prevent kidney stones, not a decrease. His doctor was not abreast of new developments. At least, at the time the question was asked, perhaps this doctor had not read his journal yet.
So my thought was, if the doctor told this to his patient, and shortly thereafter became suddenly abreast of this new information, it is very likely that the doctor would NOT have informed the patient that the information was wrong, or that there was another solution. There's a teaching parallel: when a student comes to me with some weird-ass grammar question (this happens a lot) or says "Barrie, what's a 'cenote'?", I say "I have no idea, but I will find out and tell you later." Then I go home/check a dictionary, surf around and research it and take notes. Then some time in the future I accost the student (who has sometimes forgotten they asked) and say "A cenote is a natural well or sinkhole sometimes used by the Mayans for sacrificial offerings. WHERE did you find this word?" Every time, the student is amazed that I actually followed up on the question and makes a note. Then my ratings go up.
My family had two different GPs from the time I was born to about when I turned 18 and wasn't covered under my mother's medicare anymore. Never, ever ever did either one of them notify us about new things they had discovered in the way of treating MS, obesity (which both of them claimed was the cause of every single one of my problems. Migraines? Fatass.) or informed us that the previous treatment they had suggested was outdated or incorrect. I'm envisioning some lackey from their office calling the house and saying "Dr. Su recently discovered that a large amount of MS patients benefit from bee-sting therapy, it's no longer a fringe group of new-agers who are implementing it. Sorry for the disinfo." I picture Dr. Su flipping through a medical journal in her vast house with the canary yellow Hummer outside (this is true, canary yellow Hummer, her office was in Cave Spring, GA, a "city" with a total of three hotels and a population of 975 people. This is from their website. One page.) taking notes on a legal pad, which pad she will pass to a secretary the next morning who will make phone calls to the relevant patients. Keeping people up to date.
I think this is a good idea. Perhaps this was only my experience with two doctors, but in neither situation did they EVER volunteer information. It all had to be dragged out of them, question by question (my mother had her own legal pad that she brought to appointments. Dr. Su expressed annoyance, which won her no points with me), and very often my mother was the more informed.
I think that what happens is, for example in the case of the kidney stone, the doctor does do their research. But they don't immediately pass the information on to the patient. Instead, it is stored away for use by the next patient who comes in with a kidney stone. I do think that I would have more faith in a doctor who let me know when there was a change in treatment or thinking, or when they'd been flat out wrong. I guess that is NOT the way it goes, though.
Anyone?
I used to see commercials for medical journals that doctors could subscribe to in order to "keep abreast of new developments in medicine." The article I'm reading now mentions this guy who passed a kidney stone, and then asked his doctor how the stone could have been prevented in the first place. The doctor told him to cut back on the calcium. The guy researched this, and discovered that actually an INCREASE in calcium (not the pill form) has been found to prevent kidney stones, not a decrease. His doctor was not abreast of new developments. At least, at the time the question was asked, perhaps this doctor had not read his journal yet.
So my thought was, if the doctor told this to his patient, and shortly thereafter became suddenly abreast of this new information, it is very likely that the doctor would NOT have informed the patient that the information was wrong, or that there was another solution. There's a teaching parallel: when a student comes to me with some weird-ass grammar question (this happens a lot) or says "Barrie, what's a 'cenote'?", I say "I have no idea, but I will find out and tell you later." Then I go home/check a dictionary, surf around and research it and take notes. Then some time in the future I accost the student (who has sometimes forgotten they asked) and say "A cenote is a natural well or sinkhole sometimes used by the Mayans for sacrificial offerings. WHERE did you find this word?" Every time, the student is amazed that I actually followed up on the question and makes a note. Then my ratings go up.
My family had two different GPs from the time I was born to about when I turned 18 and wasn't covered under my mother's medicare anymore. Never, ever ever did either one of them notify us about new things they had discovered in the way of treating MS, obesity (which both of them claimed was the cause of every single one of my problems. Migraines? Fatass.) or informed us that the previous treatment they had suggested was outdated or incorrect. I'm envisioning some lackey from their office calling the house and saying "Dr. Su recently discovered that a large amount of MS patients benefit from bee-sting therapy, it's no longer a fringe group of new-agers who are implementing it. Sorry for the disinfo." I picture Dr. Su flipping through a medical journal in her vast house with the canary yellow Hummer outside (this is true, canary yellow Hummer, her office was in Cave Spring, GA, a "city" with a total of three hotels and a population of 975 people. This is from their website. One page.) taking notes on a legal pad, which pad she will pass to a secretary the next morning who will make phone calls to the relevant patients. Keeping people up to date.
I think this is a good idea. Perhaps this was only my experience with two doctors, but in neither situation did they EVER volunteer information. It all had to be dragged out of them, question by question (my mother had her own legal pad that she brought to appointments. Dr. Su expressed annoyance, which won her no points with me), and very often my mother was the more informed.
I think that what happens is, for example in the case of the kidney stone, the doctor does do their research. But they don't immediately pass the information on to the patient. Instead, it is stored away for use by the next patient who comes in with a kidney stone. I do think that I would have more faith in a doctor who let me know when there was a change in treatment or thinking, or when they'd been flat out wrong. I guess that is NOT the way it goes, though.
Anyone?