Do you trust your doctor blindly?
Are you the type who trusts and faithfully follows your doctor’s instructions, or do you research all your symptoms online before each appointment and discuss each treatment option with your doctor?
Illustration generated by Bing Image Creator
Although people’s general knowledge has evolved in recent decades thanks to widespread access to information about diseases and medications available online, a certain deification of doctors still persists in parts of our society. But how can you know which of your doctor’s recommendations to follow when you consider that medicine is just as prone to temporary trends as most other professions we know? And what about the questionable relationship between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors that promises financial gains and benefits to doctors who prescribe medications that are still largely untested and high-cost?
The “God complex” of doctors is a profound historical, psychological, and cultural construct that strongly influences the doctor-patient relationship. There are several reasons for this idealization: the monopoly over life and pain; information asymmetry; the display of symbols of status, power, and purity; and medical paternalism.
Human beings have an ancestral fear of illness and death. For this reason, patients and their families tend to project onto the doctor an almost infallible ability during moments of extreme vulnerability as a way to better overcome their fear. The doctor is then regarded as a savior, and all decisions regarding the best course of treatment are delegated to him. But why, then, are documents provided that transfer legal responsibility for these decisions to patients or their guardians before high-risk procedures are performed—precisely during these most difficult moments?
Contributing to this tendency to deify doctors are the use of jargon laden with Latin terms; the fact that their knowledge was, until recently, restricted to medical textbooks and university courses; and the historical culture of blind obedience on the part of patients, which made questioning doctors’ decisions or conduct extremely frowned upon. The extreme corporatism still observed today in the medical community is a consequence of these facts.
However, when analyzing the evolution of medical treatments adopted over time for certain diseases, one observes a succession of fads, which suggest that a considerable portion of patients have received erroneous or superficial diagnoses. Yes, medicine also follows fads. This was the case, for example, with the widespread recommendation for tonsillectomies in cases of recurrent infections during the 1970s and 1980s. This surgery was almost a rite of passage for children, who eagerly looked forward to eating ice cream indiscriminately to soothe their post-surgical discomfort. Today, this surgery is a last resort, as it is preferable to preserve these essential defense organs of the immune system.
Other well-known examples of fads in medicine include the use of hard-leather and metal orthopedic boots on 2- or 3-year-olds, the preventive extraction of all four wisdom teeth in adolescents to prevent them from pushing against the other teeth, the countless variations over recent years in the blood pressure and cholesterol levels considered borderline, the condemnation of egg consumption and the promotion of margarine consumption, the practice of placing babies to sleep on their stomachs to prevent suffocation from reflux, and the lobotomy as a widely used technique in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, which was even awarded the Nobel Prize. All of these fads have been questioned and abandoned by the medical community over time.
Finally, what about the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and doctors? Aggressive marketing strategies targeting healthcare professionals result in the routine prescribing of dietary supplements, vitamin complexes, and certain laboratory tests whose use is not supported by science, as studies show little or no efficacy, and which can easily be replaced by cheaper alternatives.
The same can be said about the prescription of state-of-the-art drugs that offer marginal or no improvement compared to generic medications that are already well-established in the market and much cheaper. Likewise, the adoption of absurdly extensive annual check-ups under the motto “prevention is better than cure” can result in false positives, excessive patient exposure to radiation from imaging tests, and invasive or risky biopsies ordered based on normal statistical variations in blood tests.
Considering all of the above, we, as patients, have two different paths to take, depending on our individual profiles. Those who like to be deeply involved in all matters related to their health and lifestyle can dedicate themselves to studying, as thoroughly as possible, the diseases diagnosed by their doctors and the possible treatment alternatives so that the decisions made are compatible with the patient’s profile. On the other hand, those who prefer to delegate the decisions and responsibilities of their lives to others should diligently follow medical recommendations, without paying attention to digital influencers or the advice of “well-meaning” friends or relatives.
And you, what kind of patient are you?
Translated to english by DeepL
Voltar