Jerome
Groopman’s book How Doctors Think, reminded me of our discussion in recitation
about how and when to trust our doctors. From his book, I believe that what
Groopman is trying to say is that even though patients should trust their doctors,
they should also bring into account their own diagnosis. No matter how much a doctor
knows, or how good he/she is, if the patient does not provide the correct information
there can be errors in diagnoses. For example, I have spondylolisthesis (“a forward dislocation of one vertebra over the one beneath it producing
pressure on spinal nerves”) which a skiing accident caused. I went to 18
different doctors in 2 weeks and none of them could diagnose me. My 18th
doctor finally put a name to it and told me that I did not need surgery unless
it got worse. 6 years later, the pain started to escalate and all my spinal
records were sent to another doctor just to get a second opinion. He said that I
needed surgery as soon as possible, but then my doctor met with him to discuss
the progress of my injury along these 6 years and he said that if it hasn't gotten
any worse in 6 years then surgery might not be urgent.
Doctors need the correct history of their patients
or it is likely for them to make mistakes. Everything is not on x-rays or MRI’s
or CAT scans. How, what and when you as a patient feel are crucial information.
Family history, patient history, everything matters when it comes to talking
with your doctor. According to Groopman, no doctor is perfect but so is no
patient. It is a mutual interaction in which the patient is apart of the
diagnosis process. Embarrassment also can cause a mislead in such situations. Doctors
should also provide a safe and trustworthy environment in order for the patient
not to lie about symptoms or medical history.
I agree with what Bercis says about Groopman's goal of both showing us the human and vulnerable side of doctors, as well as encouraging the patient to think critically when diagnosed. I think that this is important to be both trusting and critical both when receiving a diagnosis, and when being prescribed a pill, as we discussed in class and section in regards to Angell's book. Like several of the other posts I have seen, I also enjoyed Groopman's book for how relatable it was to my life and my future as a patient. I had a very similar experience to that of Anne Dodge in the Introduction, being misdiagnosed several times before coming to the fairly simple conclusion that I have celiac disease. I think that books like this are important for people to read in regards to doctors and other professionals, as I think people, myself included, are often not aware that we can question our doctors, and that they are human and therefore apt to overlook things or make mistakes at times. I liked Groopman's balance between trust and questioning.
ReplyDelete