Doctors bad for your health?

[Braininvat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opini ... ealth.html

The analysis seems to bear out the conclusion that less intervention can be good for you.

[neuro]

In terms of public health expense, it also seems that money spent to send doctors to congresses is well spent... :°)

[BioWizard]

In terms of public health expense, it also seems that money spent to send doctors to congresses is well spent... :°)

Or, more generally, knowledge-possessing individuals. I suppose. :]

[doogles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/sunday/are-good-doctors-bad-for-your-health.html

The analysis seems to bear out the conclusion that less intervention can be good for you.

That’s an interesting article Braininvat. I know that if I continued to take most of the anti-hypertensive drugs that my own GP prescribes that I would be a wheelchair-bound zombie by now. The central alpha blockers and the beta blockers all mess with my brain (interest and motivation), and the calcium blockers reduce me to a slow walk. The angiotensin 2 antagonists and ACE inhibitors don’t affect my motivation, but they have no detectable effect on my hypertension.

Along the lines of your OP, I found another disturbing ‘Commentary’ in the JAMA by a Dr Barbara Stanfield titled “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” (See http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=192908 ) One sentence in her Introduction states “In addition, with the release of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "To Err Is Human,"2 millions of Americans learned, for the first time, that an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.”

Unfortunately the full text is pay only, but the same work has been cited in the following article by Ronald Grisanti on a site called ‘Your Medical Directive’ on http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/335.cfm
The article is titled “Iatrogenic Disease: The 3rd Most Fatal Disease in the USA”. The Report states that there were
105,000 deaths per year from ‘non-error negative effects of drugs’
80,000 from ‘infections in hospitals’
45,000 from ‘other errors in hospitals’
12,000 from ‘unnecessary surgery’
7,000 from ‘medication errors in hospitals’
The author adds “Dr. Starfield offers several caveats in the interpretations of these numbers: First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients. Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include the many negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort. Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.”

It’s a worry that these figures represent ‘deaths’ only – without reference to those lingering non-death disabilities and discomforts that result from errors or bad judgments.

This places more emphasis Biv on the recommendations of the author (Ezekiel J. Emanuel) in your OP. I believe his advice is worth repeating openly here, because in the end, each of us is responsible for speaking up for ourselves in exchanges with our own medical advisers.

“One thing patients can do is ask four simple questions when doctors are proposing an intervention, whether an X-ray, genetic test or surgery. First, what difference will it make? Will the test results change our approach to treatment? Second, how much improvement in terms of prolongation of life, reduction in risk of a heart attack or other problem is the treatment actually going to make? Third, how likely and severe are the side effects? And fourth, is the hospital a teaching hospital? The JAMA Internal Medicine study found that mortality was higher overall at nonteaching hospitals.”

I’m embarrassed by the fact that most of what I’ve written here is negative. I dislike being the bearer of negative tidings. So I would like to balance this ‘bad’ news by stating that I am of the opinion that far more good than harm comes from medical intervention these days. I find many of the interventions rather amazing, particularly in the surgical fields.

The point I would like to emphasise in this post is that all professionals in every field are human, and by definition, prone to errors. It is up to each of us to realise this, no matter which professional or expert we are dealing with in any field and to learn to keep asking questions if we have any doubts. In the medical field, the suggestions made by Ezekiel Emanuel above, make sense.

[Alizeh]

As of my view too many doctors can be bad for your health. The more physicians and counselore you see, the greater the chance of miscommunication and over-treatment.

[BadgerJelly]

I have noticed that doctors attract people too. Maybe we should get rid of doctors to solve this problem? :D

[Athena]

Yipes, Brainvat, while reading your link I remembered I suppose to go to the lab this morning for a blood draw. Thanks for the reminder. I am anxious for the blood test results because they will influence important life decisions.

BadgeJelly, I am not in favor of getting rid of doctors, but was interested in this thread because I want to talk about improving the method of being aware of our bodies and communicating the ups and downs we experience with our doctors. We seriously need to improve communication with doctors, and the charts and questionaires that can be used for better communication. For example on a scale of 1 to 10 my life force energy is an 8 today. It has been days since I have felt so good! On a scale 2 day, I spent most the day in bad and the idea of not taking another breath seemed pretty good to me. I have had a terrible communication problem with a doctor I really like, and I would love to resolve this problem by developing better communication tools for patients and doctors.

Not everything shows up on the test they rely on, and especially with something like a heart attack, I think the will of the patient is important and unknowable unless the patient can talk or we figure out better ways to measure it. I don't mean what a person said s/he wanted 6 months ago, because our will to live can change. But at the moment of crisis, what is the person's will to live and what might increase or decrease that will to live? Maybe if the great doctor is not present, a person fights harder to survive, instead of that vital force decreasing and relying on a doctor to save us? Do you know what I mean?

I think science has taken us down a deadly path, neglecting the real life force issues.

[Braininvat]

And yet, weirdly enough, deadly science seems to have extended the average lifespan in the U.S. (in a little over a century) from 45 to 76. So it must have paid attention to at least a few of those "life force issues."

[Athena]

And yet, weirdly enough, deadly science seems to have extended the average lifespan in the U.S. (in a little over a century) from 45 to 76. So it must have paid attention to at least a few of those "life force issues."

That science was before we thought AI is superior to humans. I did post about how AI could increase the speed of new discoveries. I am not opposed to AI. I am opposed to humans not valuing being human. When I have a burning need to communicate with my doctor, and I am told my communication is an incorrect use of the messaging system, I think my doctor is behaving like a mechanic, not a doctor, and that this is not good medicine. Old time doctors could not cure us as well as doctors can do today, but a whole lot of the development of medicine was based on human values, not profit.