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 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 do it.

The Psychology of Care Giving

Does anyone tell them that they will believe
that their self-interest is virtuous no matter what the cost to patients?

Mirrors sometimes are put in bird cages to give birds someone to play with. Birds never become aware that the image in the mirror is not another bird. They cannot learn to recognize themselves. They do not have that capacity for self-awareness. Only four animals do: elephants, dolphins, apes, and humans. Sometimes self-awareness is important for survival. Other times it is a hindrance. Apparently for all the creatures on earth except four, it is a hindrance. And even for those four sometimes it is.

The same can be true about awareness of others.

"If we had a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life . . . we should die of that roar. . . "
- George Eliot in "Middlemarch"

People in college who major in acting often are required to increase their self-awareness by taking a course in the psychology of acting. In it they learn how their profession can distort their perspective. For instance, when they are being paid to perform a role, when that role ends it is common for actors to believe that their careers are over and they never will work again. They feel this way because their personal experience supports this belief. Speaking with other actors also can support this belief. Careers do end that way. It is understandable that they would worry about it, but it is a subjective viewpoint. It is common, but it is subjective and inaccurate. So in college they are taught to understand that they will think these things and why, that their view is subjective, that their feelings of despair during these periods are normal but not based on an objective assessment of the facts and what to do about that.

Things that once were obvious go off screen.

Does anyone teach students studying medicine how their professions will warp their perceptions? Does anyone even teach them that it will, that their profession's view of the world is subjective? Does anyone teach them about how delusions are reinforced? Does anyone tell them that the experience of being part of a group of people who have the same interests and fears commonly results in shared delusions being reinforced through repetition and agreement. Does anyone tell them what that has to do with healthcare? That health care is just such a group?

Psychology courses for performers sometimes teach about the part of ourselves that, beginning in childhood,  learns what behavior is rewarded and what is punished. That is a powerful influence on a person's thinking. Being personally rewarded is one of the primary sources of insensitivity about the costs of one's reward to others and a primary source of the rationalizations that mask or dismiss the moral problems and legal problems with the source of the rewards.

What behaviors were rewarded for the tobacco company executives to give them a perspective that enabled them to swear under oath that they did not believe that smoking was addictive or bad for people? What shared worldview and quips and jokes and agreements were repeated that united them in their beliefs? More than a hundred years earlier Mark Twain had made jokes dismissing the addictive nature of tobacco and audiences laughed. Scientific studies and surgeon generals' warnings aside, for at least a century the general public had known that it was addictive and unhealthy. Yet somehow tobacco executives with MBAs and decades of management experience believed in what they were doing. It has long been known that one of the best ways to get someone to believe in a thing is to get them to participate in it. Frequently, belief results from action even when the belief is not supported by reason, knowledge, experience or argument.

"Lack of sensitivity is perhaps basically an unawareness of ourselves."
- Eric Hoffer

What behaviors in medicine are rewarded in ways that give healthcare professionals self-serving delusions like the ones held by tobacco executives? Does anyone tell medical students what those delusions will be? Does anyone make them conscious of the powerful need caregivers have to believe in themselves as healers, and how that alone will cause them to filter information to support their beliefs, and even manipulate what information get through to them and what information is available to others?

The gap between truth and belief eventually is fatal

Does anyone tell them that it is normal for healthcare professionals not only to be unaware of evidence that contradicts their worldview, but even to find ways to dismiss or deny that which they can't avoid discovering? Does anyone suggest to them what all this has to do with the couple of hundred thousand patients who die unnecessarily each year in medicine?

Like imagining that what is good for physicians is good for patients,
like liability limitations.

Disorientation

Does anyone explain to them that once they have prescribed a certain treatment for a patient, they will have a strong need to believe that they have done the right thing and to disbelieve it when they cause damage? Does anyone explain to them why they too will believe that the lawsuits and complaints of patients are frivolous in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Does anyone show them court cases in which healthcare professionals distorted medical facts and/or lied under oath, and why they too can find themselves similar sins and/or crimes while believing it is the right thing to do, and what that says about integrity in medicine at every level? Does anyone show them examples of charts doctors have created of patients that entirely distort the patient's medical condition and the information the patient has reported and why they themselves, if in similar circumstances, will do the same thing someday? Does anyone tell them how the fear of litigation or losing licenses hinders honest reporting? Does anyone explain to them how likely it is that at some point in their careers they will hide information and possibly even falsify documents, and how, while doing that, they will believe themselves that they are doing good?

Does anyone tell them that they, like all people, will trust members of their own group more than people outside their group, and how that makes healthcare professionals distrust honest patients while trusting healthcare workers whose self-interest alone should have raised questions to reveal lies and cover-ups in which the medical community willingly participates without question? Does anyone explain to them the mental contortions that they will go through in order to maintain belief in themselves and protect their careers and protect their reputations and protect their colleagues, and how that will cause them to be in denial about problems that they, and their profession as a whole, cause for patients on a routine basis? Like the all the unnecessary deaths each year taken in stride with no one thinking the problem is with them or anyone they know.

Does anyone explain to them why they never will be able to see medicine through the eyes of patients and so never will see the perspective that could be regarded as the most important one? Does anyone even suggest to them that the perspective of patients might be the most important one? Where else in our consumer economy is it the perspective of the provider believed to be the most important one?

Does anyone tell them that when you are in the middle of something it is hard to see it? Since what we continually hear from healthcare professionals is that no one outside of it could understand it, it doesn't appear so.

Parallel Worlds

Does anyone show them examples from other professions to give them some perspective? Examples in which people wanting to build a dam or skyscraper hired geologists for whom the profit motive was strong enough for them to find a rationale for erasing a fault line. Soil engineers managed to find bedrock for foundations where no one ever had before and never would again. Economists who made projections that agreed with no one other than other people being paid to work on the same project, but that were not criticized by the rest of the profession (like the average retroactive medical study done by a physician). Or politicians who made promises about plans to reduce environmental impact that may have been heartfelt at the time but that were forgotten as soon as the building permits were obtained. Does anyone explain the parallels between that and what healthcare professionals do everyday?

Or, on a smaller scale, does anyone show them examples of simple things like perc tests. Perc (for percolation) tests measure the ability of a soil to absorb liquid. If it absorbs liquid too slowly, it is not suitable for septic tanks and cannot be a good building site for homes in the absence of city sewers. In many counties, property owners and builders are allowed to conduct their own perc tests and report the results to the people who issue the permits. All one does is dig a small hole, pour water in it, let it drain, then refill it and record how long it takes to drain again. The people who will get paid more for a passing the test tend to find results that will, people who want to sell or build on a piece of property.

The person who suffers is the end client, the young couple with three kids who trusted the realtor and all the other licensed professionals who put them in the house, but who left them crippled, taking a loss economically, unable to flush toilets, hauling laundry to a Laundromat, and spending money they don't have to get another professional to drain the septic tank weekly, and another professional to add additional length on to the septic field (which makes it so that it needs to be drained every two weeks instead of every week) and to become experts on soil percolation, anaerobic decomposition, building codes and such in an attempt to solve problems that were not caught by any of the professionals who actually installed the septic in poor soil, all of whom trusted each other, and each of whom believed this wasn't their responsibility. None of their lives were effected by the results of their collective work. So none of them honed the perceptions and habits necessary to notice whether their collective effort was going to produce a good result. They each did their own jobs correctly according to standard practices.

The end buyer in this day and age might create a web site to help future victims of the same circumstance to benefit from what he/she has learned. Things learned are things like the fact that the person who installed the septic tank could have noticed that the soil was of a type unlikely to result in a healthy septic tank, but that installer's benefit is not served by awareness of that. That installer could lose jobs for pointing out that problem. So installers do not pay attention to that. They are not expected to and they are better off if they don't. So they don't.

The backhoe operator hired by the installer does this work often enough to become sensitive to soil types too. But that operator's interests are not tied to the end result so it simply is not something about which that operator is concerned. There is no personal reason for that backhoe operator to become sensitive to the connection between the soil being dug and the result that will be experienced by the person who has to live with it. That operator will have a more successful career for paying attention only to doing that which he/she was hired to do. Plumbers, realtors and others involved in delivering a finished house to an end client each could have been sensitive to such problems and protected the end client, but it is not in their interest.

Systems or Operators

For all the arguments about how this is a systems problem, the origin of this problem was a selfish human who felt safe from liability. The problem was allowed to endure by all the other people in the chain in a system that shielded the operator and rewarded selfish behavior. Honest people whose highest goal really was the well being of the end client would behave differently. But people behave according to personal rewards and punishments over and above altruism. People being paid to do a job who believe they are immune to repercussions for how they do that job are dangerous.

Harming someone was not the goal of the person doing the perc test. And it wasn't the goal of all the people who were insensitive to the problem along the way. But whether or not the ultimate result of their collective effort was harmful did not need to be on their radar. The long-term well being of the end client was not on the chart.

In systems like that people go to work believing they are doing a good job even when in the end, collectively, they are not doing a good job. Obeying regulations, traditions, protocols, and standards and having a good reputation and an unbroken chain of satisfactorily fulfilled contracts does not mean that the good that should have been done has been done. More accountability could have fixed that. Having a stake in the ultimate outcome could have helped too - making it so that how things turn out for the end client matters to each person in the chain.

The nurse or anesthesiologist who watches operations everyday, but says nothing and reports nothing and personally is better of for remembering nothing about unusual or bad events in the operating room is just a backhoe operator who doesn't give a damn about the kind of soil he/she is digging and the end result for someone else. Having no stake in the outcome discourages honing the skills and perceptions that produce good results. It is why so many patients die unnecessarily each year. This is a world that puts their own well-being at odds with the well-being of patients to the extent that they don't even report the problems that are killing patients. It is in their own interest not to report. Does anyone even tell medical students that only 1.5% of adverse events get reported?

Caregivers have managed to conclude that patients are better off
when caregivers are less accountable

One of the mantras of medicine is that everyone in medicine means well. In patient safety discussions it is forbidden to mention examples of when they did not. All policies resulting must behave as though everyone in medicine blameless. The thinking is that this will encourage the reporting that is requisite for making medicine safe for patients.

No matter what laws or regulations are passed to hold blameless those who report, a system of people prepared to proceed with their work and earn their livings in routine ways is rocked by reporting. People figure out who caused the rocking and rock them back. Things change for the worse for the person who reports no matter what the system does to enforce "blameless" reporting. Reporting is a breach of loyalty that is not easily forgiven. Any proposals for improving patient safety by requiring objective reporting are not touching the biggest problems. We already have mandatory reporting laws. When they were passed there was no increase in reporting. Shouldn't someone explain to medical students that they won't report either and why?

People at the top of the profession in medicine state that no one in medicine would fail to report a problem. Yet every study done on it finds that the majority of problems are not reported, but that is dismissed by healthcare professionals. Shouldn't medical students at least understand why they will deny the studies and statistics and form beliefs based that they will believe are founded on personal experience when it really only is self-interest? Like the tobacco executives.

We didn't even mention the seductive nature of caregiving.

Would it do any good to tell them?

Does anyone tell people in medicine that they may believe in their hearts that the most important thing to them is the welfare of their patients, but they are humans. For humans self delusion is normal. Since it is delusion, they will not recognize it. And they will not recognize when trusted colleagues and subordinates and superiors manage things in self-interested ways. If some patient tries to get to the bottom of a problem, the healthcare professionals may find themselves "failing" to report information that the community of patients needs to have, and yet believe that what they are doing is for good of the community of patients. Conflicts of interest create such delusions. Healthcare professionals are only humans. For a grand illustration of this, just witness what the AMA did believing that it was in the interests of patients.

Does anyone tell future healthcare professionals that someday if a patient says that his/her injuries were inflicted intentionally by someone working in healthcare, the future healthcare professionals are likely to go as far as to telephone other healthcare providers to warn them not to discover those injuries lest those diagnoses be used to indict a colleague. Yet when asked if there is such a thing as blacklisting, in their hearts they will believe it when they say, "No." Wouldn't it help if, as they were doing that, there was an echo in their minds of the words of some college professor telling them that they would do this, and that when they did they would believe in what they were doing? Shouldn't there be an echo in their minds of a warning about how they will rationalize distorting and lying, and how what they will believe is true often only is self-interest in a cocoon of unrecognized rationalizations.

Does anyone explain to them that an inability to imagine any viewpoint other than their own is normal in medicine and reinforced by the culture in medicine? Does anyone explain cocooning to them - the inclination to find sources of information that reinforce self-serving views, and how that insulates them from learning the truths that would save the lives of patients when those truths might not be easily accepted by people whose pride or income might be impinged?

John Stuart Mill defined intelligence as sufficient detachment
from one's own case to consider it as one of many.

Does anyone explain to them that once they are healthcare professionals they never will be able to see the world of medicine from the viewpoint of patients, in part because the world of medicine takes care of its own differently than it takes care of patients. Negligence, exploitation and abuse are not likely to be visited on members of their own team, for one thing. And members of the team know who to talk to when things are not right. And when they talk people will listen to them. That is the opposite of what patients experience.

How many light bulbs does it take to change a culture?

Social animals, from hyenas to humans, keep track of large social networks, form long-term alliances with each other and compete with rivals. This is natural for them and for us. Does anyone explain to healthcare professionals how their being in a group, healthcare professionals, unites them against other groups, like patients, when patients become problems, as from adverse events, especially when those events are the fault of the healthcare professionals?

Did you ever hear entertainers complain that their audience was stupid? Healthcare professionals make similar statements about patients all the time. For instance, medical professionals talking about cases like Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham have been heard by this author to say that the problem is that the patients didn't complain. There is no appreciation for the extent to which medicine is an imposing and overbearing industry that crushes patients when they complain. Does anyone explain to future healthcare professionals why they will never see themselves as crushing, blacklisting, and denying care to victims, but instead will see themselves only as protecting themselves and their colleagues from suits and complaints that they will imagine to be frivolous?

Currently what we hear from people in medicine is protestations that they, and only they, are objective about the world of medicine. There is no apparent awareness of their own subjectivity and their own conflicts of interest. That is a major failure of awareness. But such awareness perhaps is not important, or even beneficial, to their survival. It is a matter of life and death only to patients.

What medicine benefits from not understanding about itself
kills patients

". . . the quickest of us walk about well wadded with stupidity."
- George Eliot in
Middlemarch

Conflict of Interest

_____________________________________________________________

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 phone number is on almost every page. So is my email address. There even are Feedback Forms where you can communicate anonymously. I am listening. I will be sensitive to what you say.

To contact me, click email
or call 513-348-4744 in the USA
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved
Revised March 9, 2010