Understanding current scenario…
Health has always been of great value to all human beings. With the increased availability of relevant content over multiple social media platforms, online resources etc., more people are making active decisions to stay healthy.
We now have more information and hence more control over how we want to stay healthy. We want to be aware and be involved in the decision-making process. We are no longer passive in our approach towards our health.
But does this same approach help us when we are suffering from an illness?
Let’s examine this question systematically.
The need to control things around us comes from a multitude of factors. Let me list a few:
- The lack of trust that we have in others.
- We believe that our understanding of science triumphs over that of others, including that of trained professionals
- We just want to be in control, because that boosts our self-respect or sometimes even our ego.
- We feel that individuals giving advice have an inherent incentive to do so, and hence it is not always reliable.
These reasons can vary from person to person and from culture to culture.
Now there is a big difference in being healthy and getting better when you are ill.
When someone is suffering from an illness, there is a need to consult a doctor. Although a lot of information is available online, there is no relevant context available to that information.
How that information is to be used, how it is to be correlated, how it has to be adapted is not available online. Whatever is available is just dots, which need to be connected, based on interpersonal differences.
If we apply the same principles of taking charge of our decisions when it comes to staying healthy to when it comes to treating an illness, we can end up losing a lot.
A lot of patients come to me and tell me that they don’t think that they need medicines. This phenomenon is not just present in psychiatry, but is also present to a variable degree in all other branches of medicines. The need to second (disagree) a decision is now being increasingly ingrained in patients when visiting a doctor.
I don’t need these medicines – Here’re some of the interesting “Whys?”
What is fostering this need to disagree with an opinion, to decide upon the specifics of a treatment, to question the rationale of everything that is being discussed is quite amusing to me.
I often ask my patients to elaborate on the reasons to disagree with my opinion. The most common reasons given to me are:
- My relatives, friends etc. have warned me against the use of medicines. They say that they are addictive and I will get dependent on these.
- I am sure there must be some added commercial interest.
- The easy way is to write medicines. At least spend some time listening to my problems.
- I don’t think I am so weak that I need medicines.
Of all these reasons, the most interesting reason is the first one. We as humans have a tendency to believe people whom we trust, irrespective of their field of expertise. None of our close friends could be a doctor or be related to the medical field, or have suffered from a similar illness or even seen someone close suffering and being treated for a psychiatric illness, but we still tend to listen to them.
We believe that they have our best interest at heart and anything that contradicts their opinion is not worth following.
A few things have to be kept in mind here. We resonate with what we feel connected to. If we dislike medicines or feel strongly about them, any friend or relative offering a similar opinion will be regarded in high value.
If we believe that there is a conflict of interest when visiting a doctor and that they do not have our best interest at heart, we will subconsciously resonate a similar opinion from a friend or a relative.
Hence as much as we want to believe that we are taking an informed decision, it might be driven by subconscious needs and biases. Thus, it might not truly be in our favour.
A contradicting point here is, that science is not perfect, doctors change their opinions, often two doctors can have very different approaches to treating a similar condition.
What then?
Medicine is continuously evolving and guidelines change every few years. But the point is that these are being updated by subject matter experts who are using rigorous scientific methods and their plethora of field experiences to make these changes. These are not political, social or personal in nature.
The point that I am trying to make is that:
“MEDICIAL OPINIONS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC IN NATURE”
What I mean by this is, that for any doctor, it’s a part of his professional duty to provide an opinion that he thinks is best for the patient. The doctor cannot be apologetic for doing so. An opinion does not need to be appealing, it has to be for your benefit.
The patient has a right to follow or discard that opinion but has no say in the opinion. For e.g., if surgery is indicated in some case, it’s the doctor’s job to decide upon the need and type of surgery. It’s the patient’s choice to undergo or not undergo the surgery.
This decision of getting operated or not is the patient’s decision. But the factors influencing this decision should not be based on hearsay or biases. It should be based on objective facts and the basic trust in the wellbeing and nobility of the medical profession.
Banner Image Source – www.pexels.com
