Half of US Doctors Routinely Prescribe Placebos
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The problem is that patients frequently demand antibiotics for infections that don't require them and patients demand XRays for injuries that are obviously not fractures.
If someone is going to take little Jonny to the ER at 3 in the morning because the child has a fever and a cough, the last thing that the parents want to hear is "give him Tylenol, push fluids, plenty of rest..." Plain and simple, if they're going through the trouble to see the doctor, they want a prescription. So, instead of spending 20 minutes explaining to the parents why little Jonny doesn't need a prescription, they spend 5 minutes with them, prescribe an antibiotic that they _might_ but probably don't need, and run off to see the next patient.
On both occassions I was satisfied: I was pretty sure that it was a viral infection, but with a temperature that high, I wanted to be sure. I would be bloody annoyed if the docs prescribed unnecessary antibiotics. Not all patients are dense and doctors shouldn't treat us as if we are - that just spreads ignorance.
Actually, we are lucky over here now. NHS is a really very good phone consulting service. You phone up with a sick child and they take you through a very VERY detailed list of symptoms and questions. This phone service has saved me a couple of night trips to the hospital since it started.
I don't think those expectations are the fault of the patient. It's a natural extension of our drive-thru, fast-food.
At very least, I've found those expectations to be common in most of the 20+ hospitals/ER's that I've worked in over the past 15 years.
I field at least 3-4 calls a night asking for advice. I am not allowed to give any advice over the phone because of liability reasons. People's only option in the middle of the night is to go to the ER and wait their turn which creates frustration and high expectations. It's a bad system, not bad patients.
Why? There was nothing wrong. Would you have been happier if they diagnosed cancer? I find the (mostly American) obsession with pills very very strange. I hate seeing this getting imported to Canada, but more and more this seems to be the case.
I've been dealing w/ a knee injury for a year+ and recently decided to bite the bullet (it's expensive!) and have it checked out. (Being an bootstrapping entrepreneur tends to have the side effect of having less-than-comprehensive health insurance) When the results of the MRI and X-Ray came in I found myself rather disappointed that there were no tears or fractures. I guess I just wanted a definite answer to why my knee was messed up so I could put a rehab plan into place and get back into running and mixed martial arts. Hearing "Don't know what's wrong. Rest it" was rather frustrating.
Care you expand on that?
It seems to me that most of them regarded this as simply a stop gap or "treatment" and not a cure. Those that thought they would not have any more issues with their knees were not happy. Many who got it earlier on suggested that they would have chosen to go as long as possible without the post surgery rehab if they could.
I've been fortunate enough not to have any knee or foot issues myself, so I'm certainly not claiming to be an authority here.
cough Anyway. I found this line from the article amusing: Only 5 percent described the treatment to patients as “a placebo.”
That's a big problem, because sugar pills don't breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. There's a serious argument to be made for homeopathy here: homeopathic treatments don't have side effects.
Indeed. Most of us could stand to drink more water anyways.
Moreover, there is a significant side effect: A financial one. That's why I prefer to advocate DIY homeopathics. If yours don't seem to be working, try making them by the light of the full moon. No kidding.
Oh, they have. Homeopathy is much more popular in Europe than in the USA, and according to Wikipedia some European health insurance actually covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_prevalence_of_ho...
Covering homeopathy with health insurance strikes me as smart. For one thing, it saves everybody money. Sadly, an over-the-counter homeopathic remedy is more effective if it costs $25 per dose than if it is sold at cost (keep in mind how the treatment works). But an Officially Sanctioned Government Treatment, the true cost of which (5 cents, for the formal-looking box) is hidden from you, is probably almost as good as the $25 stuff. Especially if the box has lots of testimonials and some impressive-sounding Latin words.
It also encourages people to get their homeopathy from an actual doctor, who is able to make use of actual medical science when it proves necessary. This helps discourage the problem of overenthusiastic entrepreneurs cutting out the middleman by convincing people to treat their diabetes and Stage I cancer with nothing but an extremely dilute, patent-pending snake oil solution.
For the cases when medicine doesn't work, faith healing wins. It's cheaper, and equally effective. Of course, it will never happen, due to irrational faith in doctors.
Robin Hanson is an interesting read on this topic.
So does faith healing.
I declined.
I know there are several brand names for placebo drugs, but would it be obvious if a doctor prescribed one to me or my family?