Choice 'confuses cancer patients'

**rory_20_uk** · 09-03-2006, 11:28

Linky

Isn't this typical?

For how long have doctors been accused of behaving in a "paternalistic way", acting as if we know best about a field that we've spent 5 years or more studying?

So we've stopped doing that and give patients' choice over what they want. No editorial, else we might be preventing unbiased informed choice.

And oddly enough, doctors are keen to press on with treatment as soon as a diagnosis is reached. Wouldn't people squeal in protest if doctors were leaving a month to come to terms with the malignancy?

The general public doesn't want much. Merely:

To be seen instantly.
Diagnosed instantly with tests that show exactly what is wrong, and all tests to be available all the time.
To be treated quickly but at the same time given time to review options preferably after a long discussion with the doctor.
Oh, of course pain free all of the time.

What planet are people on? What do they expect? Oh, I see.

Of course it is those that pay the least and generally have the most wrong that are demanding the most. Is it that in this group the relationship between money and services has become so distorted that they no longer understand?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-03-2006, 18:17

Welcome to the mad house.

I've always thought choice for patients was idiotic really.

I mean, wow, I've got cancer, I know what treatment is best. Thats why they say doctors make terrible patients, they know what the choices actually are, and they want to make all of them.

**doc_bean** · 09-03-2006, 18:36

I know a few doctors who i wouldn't trust to make a life or death choice. Give me info any way, thenI'll aks for advice, and if it's reasonable, follow it.

**Navaros** · 09-04-2006, 12:40

It is not clear to me what the message of the original poster is supposed to be. It seems he may be implying that it is wrong for a patient to be able to make an informed choice about potentially life or death decisions, and that any doctor should be able to make to make that choice for the patient whilst the patient remains in ignorance.

That way of thinking is totally incorrect.

Doctors are ultimately just men, and as such they are as fallible as anyone else. Going to school for many years and being paid lots of money does not make them less fallible.

If you go to a bunch of different doctors with the exact same issue, you will get a huge spectrum of different responses; often contrary to each other. That speaks to how a doctor's opinion is not sacred and often, not even correct.

If a patient is too stressed out to make a decision then he can always tell the doctor to make it for him.

There is no reason to keep the patient ignorant and let the doctor make life or death decisions for his ignorant self. The decision of that doctor could very easily be the wrong one.

**English assassin** · 09-04-2006, 17:50

Did they cover "informed consent" in your training Rory?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-04-2006, 18:59

I'm going to go with Navaros on this one. His answer is reasonable and thought-out.

And another point; it seems that Britain is increasingly treating its citiz...er, subjects as children, so why should we be surprised that they are trying to take away more freedom from the people?

Crazed Rabbit

**Scurvy** · 09-04-2006, 20:39

Originally Posted by Navaros

Doctors are ultimately just men, and as such they are as fallible as anyone else. Going to school for many years and being paid lots of money does not make them less fallible.

If you go to a bunch of different doctors with the exact same issue, you will get a huge spectrum of different responses; often contrary to each other. That speaks to how a doctor's opinion is not sacred and often, not even correct.

An NHS doctor is a qualified individual who is in a far better position to make a decision than the vast majority of patients, doctors might have differing opinions, but at least they have the knowledge and experience to gain these opinions

if i needed medical advice i would always trust the doctor, and whether or not his choice was the right in the end, he is more likely to make the right decision than me (and most other patients)

**Reenk Roink** · 09-04-2006, 21:51

I like Scurvy's answer. I would definitely trust my doctor's opinion rather than my own, even if I had done some of my own research. Of course, I understand the patient's perspective, and I do think that patient's should have their choice, but they should also put more faith into what their doctor says. Personally, my doctor's opinion would have great bearing on what I decide to do.

I would want to be offered the choices, but also want to be offered my doctor's opinion...

**Papewaio** · 09-05-2006, 02:07

When I go to my GP to get my referral to my Skin Cancer specialist for my next checkup (down to once every two years) and then rock up to said specialist I do both. I ask questions and listen to my specialist (BTW why do a lot of specialist prefer not to be called Doctor... they seem to indicate that is beneath them)... and outside of those visits I read up on items when I have the inclination.

It can take anything from a couple of days to a couple of weeks for a biopsy to come back, so plenty of time to review your options during that period.

**Reenk Roink** · 09-05-2006, 02:13

Originally Posted by Papewaio

(BTW why do a lot of specialist prefer not to be called Doctor... they seem to indicate that is beneath them)

Doctors are funny people...

My dad has on more than one occasion made supercillious remarks concerning a D.O simply due to his M.D...

**Kanamori** · 09-05-2006, 05:28

I'd never go to a hospital that didn't give me choices.

if i needed medical advice i would always trust the doctor, and whether or not his choice was the right in the end, he is more likely to make the right decision than me (and most other patients)

Which doctor do you choose, if they're saying different things?