Full Table of Contents
_______________

Abbreviated
Table of Contents

Home Page
Patient Safety
Silence vs
    Safety
Silenced
White wall
    of Silence
Silencing
Conflict Of
    Interest
Psychology of
    Providers
Subjectivity
Blacklisting  
Nurse survey
Loyalty
Mobbing and
    bullying
Trust Us
Defensive
    documenting
Report Rate
Risk
    managemnt
SOAP
Management
Hospitals
Crime in
    medicine
Sexual Abuse
Liability
    Limitations
Free Speech
    for Patients
Exploitation

OSMB Medical
    Boards
Mammography
solutions
Medical errors
Medical
    Complaints

One number
Links

 

Injured patients who want to help and be heard, click here.

 

Thomas Jefferson said that given the choice between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, he would choose to have newspapers.

In medicine we have government without newspapers. Patients cannot find out what they need to know to make informed choices. No one in medicine records or reports the information patients need to know the most. So patients will have to.

DNA

Caregivers not only don't want patients to understand their own health care system, they even don't want them to understand their own health.

Companies began selling DNA test results directly to patients. Worried doctors and other health experts persuaded New York State to pass a law against that in the guise of protecting patients from knowledge that they might not understand or might misinterpret or that might traumatize them or drive them to seek radical treatments that were not necessary. The doctors and health experts persuaded New York legislators that they, the caregivers, needed to supervise this testing for the good of the patients. Patients just were not smart enough to run their own lives.

You need a referral for knowledge

Now there have been two studies in which researchers have found that the doctors and other health care experts should try being less paternalistic and try getting more informed and realistic about patients.

One study followed more than 2000 people who had genomewide scans and were given estimates of their genetic risk for more than 20 different conditions. About six months after patients received the 90-page long reports explaining their genetic risks, the level of psychological anxiety had not risen among the patients. They were not overwhelmed by the information and had not engaged in rash behavior as a result of it.

The only change was a tendency to seek more medical screening in order to learn more.

Ignorance isn't bliss

Doctors and health experts argued that there was no reason to get tested for conditions doctors could not cure anyway. But to patients, even bad news was preferable to the anxiety of ignorance and uncertainty. Patients are willing to pay for information even when it is imprecise because, to them, imprecise information is better than no information. They want to understand their world and be more in control of their lives.

But caregivers want that control. Originally patients had to go through a doctor and then a counselor to get a genetic test like these. Then new companies cut out the middle people and began doing business directly with consumers, saving consumer hundreds of dollars in fees to the middle people.

Shouldn't patients be able to gather information about their own bodies without having to get permission from, and pay fees to, a doctor and a counselor?

Whose information is this?

Here is are some of the arguments doctors used to rationalize not allowing patients control over their own lives.

"What should happen, for instance, when a 30-year-old man with no relevant signs, symptoms, or family history shows his doctor a genetic test indicating that he has an elevated risk of prostate cancer? Should his prostate-specific antigen level be measured? An ultrasound obtained? A biopsy performed? What level of risk should trigger further testing? What are the liability risks of not pursuing a diagnostic evaluation?

Doctors argue that additional information will lead to additional testing that increases the cost of health care and risks accidental harm to patients.

That is a pile of condescending speculation founded on the assumption that patients are too stupid to run their own lives. The two studies recently done found that none of the above concerns are valid concerns. And yet, based on demeaning and unfounded speculation, the medical industry got a law passed restricting the access of patients to information about their own bodies. It's the same thought process that resulted in HIPPA laws that further disempower patients. And the liability limitations that further disempower patients. And the constant encroaching of medicine's power over patients.

Patients' Rights?

I consider it a basic human right to be allowed to learn about your own body. Since when does it make sense to deny a basic human right because it might cost something?

It makes sense to doctors when they might make less profit on an office visit because of it. Often insurance companies pay doctors a set fee for an office visit and, in order to discourage unnecessary testing, any tests ordered come out of that fee. All of the items listed in the above paragraph are concerns doctors have about their own profit. In order for doctors to avoid the possibility of paying a portion of an office visit fee for patients to learn about their own health, doctors got a law passed to prevent patients from finding out anything about their own DNA without first paying another fee to doctors to get that information. And how often would the doctor collect the fee without letting the patient get the information?

Fees for Nothing

It turns out to be yet another example of paranoia on the part of the medical profession preventing patients from running their own lives. Their self-interested speculations were unfounded and, in the end, wrong. Yet now there is a law unfriendly to patients on the books in New York because of it. Putting more fees and more office visits between patients and the information about their own bodies means patients end up with less information.

This is another example of why there needs to be a guild or board that represents patients. When health care providers were persuading New York State legislators that a law had to be passed to prevent patients from gaining knowledge, where was someone to represent the interests of patients with a more sane and less self-aggrandizing perspective?

This is a lesson in what happens when government tries to regulate medicine rather than empowering patients to do that themselves - something they will never learn as long as all their information about health care comes through the filters of the vested interests of people in health care.

The studies appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, January 2011

Hit your back button to return to where you were

_____________________________________________________________

Home | Table of Contents | It's a Path
Silence versus Patient Safety
Loyalty versus Patient Safety
The White Wall of Silence versus Patient Safety
Blacklisting Patients
Freedom of Speech for Patients
Medical Complaints - How to

 < Truth / Justice / Patient Safety >
It's a path

If you want to say something about any of my sites, my email address is on almost every page. I am listening. I will be sensitive to what you say.

To contact me, click email
Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved
Site revised November 29, 2011