Many times patients think
that physicians don’t listen to them, but physicians are some of the best
listeners I have known. There have been
times when I have shadowed doctors, and patients will attempt to tell long
winded stories that do not aid in treating their malady. The doctor will cut them short in a polite
way and attempt to get to the bottom of the problem at hand. It may seem like the doctor does not care for
the patient’s story, and that may be the case, but most of the time the doctor
has many other patients that are also waiting.
In an effort to spread his or her time evenly between all of the
patients, the doctor must cut the patient short and not “listen.” If the reimbursement program were to come
into effect, it would create a catch twenty-two. If the doctor spends more time with one
patient, then other patients will be angry for having to wait. If the doctor spends less time with one
patient to tend to others, then that patient will feel unsatisfied.
The doctor should make an
effort to explain certain procedures and medicines to the patient, but also,
the patient should realize that they will not have the same understanding as
the physician. The physician is the
expert in the room. In the field of
oncology, many patients don’t fully understand the tolls that chemotherapy
takes on their bodies. In a study
concerning a patient’s knowledge, over 60% of lung cancer patients and over 70%
of colon cancer patients did not realize that chemotherapy was not
curative. Another finding suggested that
the more patients understood their situations, the more they disliked their
care provider. The more the patients are
educated, the more they realize how much they do not know resulting in feelings of
dissatisfaction. If oncologists were to
educate all of their patients, these findings suggest that these physicians
would have some of the lowest satisfaction scores for doing a better job.
Education does seem crucial to disarming patient dissatisfaction, so much of which is rooted in both ignorance and desperation.
ReplyDeleteEthics on GMOs Part II of III
ReplyDeleteThis post will go over the more ethical aspects of GMO use. The debate isn't so much science vs anti-science, but a debate to how public the scientific world should be. GMO labeling remains a top priority in the debate on GMOs. 64 countries already have mandatory labeling for foods containing GMOs. but the US has yet to follow. People deserve to know what they are buying, and the myths against GMO labeling are kinda off. They say food prices will see a spike if GMOs are labeled. Companies have to change labeling all the time, and there has never been any major price spikes because of it. And voluntary measures are a joke, as the FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label their GMO projects, but no major companies have even started to. Mandatory labeling is the only way to go if we are to give the public what they want.
Other ethical debates focus on how long the studies go on. Right now in the US, only 5 years of testing are required for seeds to be planted. Some scientists, including the infamous Bill Nye, say that 5 years isn't enough for the long term effects to be seen. This could be dangerous for the long term ecological and health effects for humans.