For every case of "It took 8 doctors over the course of 3 years to get a diagnosis" there are 5000 cases of "It took 1 doctor on one visit to get a diagnosis"
But in this case, I don't think it would be "incredibly wasteful and expensive." The case study stated, "On her ED visits, she was discharged with the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication, despite her reports of no alcohol intake, corroborated by her family." She didn't need some expensive diagnostic test for a diagnosis, she needed a doctor to pay attention to what she and her family were saying.
As someone with a relatively obscure condition, I’ve gotten used to being the pachinko ball that falls straight down the diagnostic chart to the wrong conclusion. But I understand the numbers are against me.
I'd rather them disregard their bias than disregard their patients. If someone insists they don't drink when challenged with the BAC data (especially with corroboration like in this case), do a test to determine if they're lying or not. Don't just assume they're lying.
But doctors often are arrogant and unwilling to admit error, even to other doctors. The best you can sometimes do in those situations is to get bossy and try to take control of the situation (e.g. I know you're assuming I'm a lying alcoholic, but I don't drink, so explain to me how I could be intoxicated without drinking...what tests would you need to prove that...), but not everyone has the confidence to do that or to do it only when it's needed.
Some of my big breakthroughs came in ER visits where they are a little more focused on problem solving and less on getting you out the door in time to keep to schedule. It doesn't live up to the fiction of House but sometimes if I had good rapport with an ER doctor, they took a few minutes to think about how best to keep me out of their ER in the future.
This sometimes got me what a relative called "real drugs instead of tea and sympathy."
We have a broken system. I don't know how to fix it but some of the criticisms of specific people in the broken system implicitly assume "These people are the problem!" And that doesn't really fit my firsthand experience.
I actually had a great ER experience along these lines. I felt bad being there after it became clear that I was going to be fine while there was a lady wailing in pain about 10 feet away, but at least I left with a lot of things to discuss with my regular doctor and I at least knew when I should/shouldn't worry in future situations.
Is that fair? No. Does a medical professional have an obligation to take a patient seriously? Yes. But I bet busy physicians have an hard time avoiding being biased by direct experience with unreliable patients: drug seekers, people with mental health issues, people who want the drug they saw on Fox News ads, etc.
What's the threshold for where doctors should begin to believe their patients' claims, as opposed to simply assuming they're merely some drug addict seeking another hit or someone lazy seeking time off work?
I'm someone who's specifically had GI doctors ignore what I say so intensely as for this conversation to have seriously taken place:
Me: "The [medication] might have worked, I feel slightly better, but it was way too strong. I had nearly all the major side effects that the instructions said to contact you if I get them. Is there any smaller dose, or could I try out something else?"
GI Specialist: "Ok, so would you like me to increase the dose? I can prescribe [double]."
Edit: meant to conclude that I think it's not just excessive distrust, and that it'd be absurd and cruel to just always distrust patients completely -- that doctors definitely seem to ignore patients heavily, especially if they're in any way abnormal.
Also, Did you consider just taking half the dose?
And as for dose, it was a medication measured in micrograms -- I'd have to be able to carefully measure microgram amounts and put them back into new capsules, it wasn't very realistic. I wound up finding alternatives on my own.
As an aside, I actually have FAR worse stories of GI doctors being incompetent and careless, that one just seemed the most relevant to the topic there.
One other funny one seriously went like:
GI Specialist Dr., "No, you can't really be feeling pain there, the intestines don't have any nerves"
Me, "So why did you say I needed to be sedated for my colonoscopy because it would be too painful otherwise?"
Dr, [angry response about if I want to just argue or let him do his job]
If you can't tell, I soon switched doctors after. But overall that sort of encounter, or things like even violating their own medical association's recommendations such as with prescribing PPIs and Antibiotics simultaneously to a patient already at higher risk of c. Difficile or more than one doctor not being aware of which painkillers are NSAIDs (Yes, really! One GI and one Urologist) has really reduced my trust in specialists, at least in Texas. They so, so, so often seem to just ignore or disbelieve patients.
I get being frustrated to work with a bad doctor, but the outrage seems deeper, like people are frustrated that they even exist.
One would expect a nurse to know less about which medication is likely to produce the best outcome in a given patient than a doctor, but the opposite is often the case due to some mix of the average doctor’s ego, and their investment and presence around patients over prolonged periods.
Many doctors appear frustrated that patients exist, they’d rather just look at a list of symptoms and write a prescription without acknowledging the individual.
I just think this is delusional. Pay, and education, and accountability do very little to make them superhuman. similarly, just because people dont have good alternatives to doctors, doesnt make doctors good at their job or their expectations rational. That is wish casting, and not how the world works.
I think it is more realistic to think of them like a mechanic who you are asking for advice. They might shrug or give their best guess, but they aren't promising anything. At the end of the day, it is your car and your problem, not their problem. They might try to help, but they dont owe you anything.
I guess I dont think patients are entitled to results or anything else from doctors, besides trying not to leave them worse off and maybe a mild positive intent.
Does a bad mechanic leave you in physical pain and have the potential to leave you suffering worse than before you arrived?
Can you avoid the problem of a bad doctor by just getting a new body?
Remember that the origin of this discussion is in many doctors not believing a woman despite reasonable evidence to the contrary.
Nobody would be outraged if they still were broadly and even justifiably wary but put in ANY effort at all to attempt to at least humor the possibility she wasn't an alcoholic, especially after passing psych screening tests, however primitive.
And sure, she could have gone to doctors other than ER doctors, but that is why I mentioned my own experiences that it isn't very different with (at least some) specialists.
Going a bit back to the mechanic analogy, it's hard for people who are busy and suffering to make extremely well thought out and slow decisions in that state, especially if there's sometimes enough improvement they can seemingly be recovered.
Regarding your questions, I do think both doctors and mechanics have a responsibility to try not to make things worse than if they had done nothing at all. I don't think the doctor is here made her condition worse.
If I have a broken car, it's my responsibility to fix or replace it, not the mechanics. If I don't like the service a mechanic offers, my choices are find a new one, do it myself, or go without.
I think people would be better served if they thought about doctors in the same manner.
Just like they're frustrated if they don't listen at a grade school comprehension level, which absolutely is not superhuman.
Are you autistic by any chance? If so, I recommend trying to think in terms of the suffering people experience specifically because of the circumstances and because of a common social treatment of distrust and inattention.
E.g. I'll be far more bothered by someone who pretends to listen then ignored me, or who actively accuses me of not feeling pain, than someone who merely does a bad job -- i didn't, for instance, complain about my first GI specialist who merely did a bad job but always paid attention and tried to work slightly more than a chatbot in terms of effort put.
And effort too there is relevant, especially someone in a context of great luxury and not insignificant "authority" (i lack a better term rn) afforded by their position.
I think the interesting point for me is the "authority", or social part of it. This seems to be a projection from the patient, and then they get upset that doctors dont reciprocate.
This is what strikes me as screaming at the clouds. Respect, authority, and trust are in the eye of the beholder. To the degree that there is a mismatch between expectations and reality, the error is on patient for projecting a false reality. Then they are angry when reality doesn't match of with their imaginations.
I also think it is weird to place such broad expectations on doctors as a class of people, as if they are all the same. Some are great and some are shit. Most are somewhere in-between.
If the anger is that doctors are paid more, that doesnt make sense to me either, because it is just supply and demand, not some moral social quality of doctors that make them better humans, and therefore deserving of more luxury or financial success. It seems a weird special expectation that people have constructed for doctors. In contrast, Nobody has an elevated moral expectation of bankers just because they make more money.
I just think that people would be happier, and perhaps get better care if they based their expectations in reality.
You shouldnt view health as a responsibility you can outsource to a doctor. No doctor will care about your life more than you do. Doctors come in all levels of competency, and it is your job as owner of your body to shop around. Some people desperately want blind trust and freedom from responsibility, but if they go down that path, they are embracing a fantasy,
I dont think doctors should be elevated to some super-human status. They are human. Many of them do a tricky and socially useful job, but there is nothing magic about it or them.
I doubt it was lack of attention, but lack of trust instead.
When I was a homemaker and having serious health issues, I sometimes wore a suit to see a medical professional to try to get them to take me more seriously. I used to bitch to friends that I felt like pinning a list of my academic achievements to my lapel.
"Oh, it's a homemaker. Must be stupid! Couldn't possibly have been a good student in school! Smart women all have serious careers."
Yeah, sure. That's reality./s
I've continued to drink alcohol in moderation for another 15 years+ without issue.
A coworker of mine had back issues, they only took him seriously when he was brought in via ambulance because he couldn't stand a year later after multiple visits to both his GP and hospital.
And they still didn't take him seriously, they were going to discharge him in a wheelchair until he pissed himself because he had lost all control of his lower body and couldn't even tell that he had to pee.
White guy, steady job and good insurance. To the doctor's it look like someone trying to get pain meds.
Edit to change tone
But it's a factor generally for women. Which doesn't assert men always get fabulous results every time, nor does it in any way "rebut" points other people already made elsewhere in this discussion.
I was just going to ignore the ridiculous pile on to my comment, but it's not stopping. Folks are blowing it out of proportion.
Which may not stop but now I'm on record with that observation.
I wish it really were that simple. I dont think it is.
Additionally, your suggestion fundamentally dismisses my main point: This is apparently a bigger issue for women than men generally.
And when men act like it's unreasonable for a woman to be aware this is a bigger issue for women and to toss that detail out there in public discussion, it's just a no win situation for women.
The people most impacted are routinely treated like they are whiners who should just shut up and accept that no one will bother to care.
And not just about gender. People of color also routinely get treated crappily for being the ones who bring up X issue when no one else will and they bring it up because they are the ones aware of it.
FWIW I hardly look at usernames and judge the comments anonymously, at least at first.
Meet Amanda- will she be able to convince Doctor #3 that she's not a secret alcoholic?
With doctors it's about catching anything that isn't obvious.
If you've broken a bone or have a tumor or one of the standard tests comes back out of range, their job is easy. If you haven't they're completely useless and will prescribe either an SSRI or a stimulant.
Very many people have very many conditions that aren't trivial to diagnose and just get ignored.
It's not because they can't, it's because they're not interested and resources aren't organized enough to be able to give the appropriate amount of attention to a person.
Say there are 500 rare conditions with a rate of 2 per 100k per year. That means one out of 100 patients will develop one of those 500 in a given year.