You may think it is a basic right for our patient to know the pros and cons of every treatment option so that they could make their own decision.
True, it is a right that we, as clinicians, should respect. (A shrewd reader would note that I did not say facilitate.) However, it is, to say the least, silly to exercise this right when we become patients. We know just too well the consequence from the Genesis, when Adam exercised his right and ate the apple in Eden.
You may think it is necessary to weight the pros and cons for our own decisions. But no, as patients, we are not in the best position - we are often biased and blinded, and, as King Nikochan's servant loves to say, do not see the whole picture. We need someone cool and objective to balance the risk for us.
That's why we need the doctor, who does not only treat our disease and relief our suffering. Equally important, he takes the trouble and worry of knowing everything from our shoulder, so that we could sleep well under his hands.
In other words, I prefer to exercise my right not to know.
Go read Foster C. Autonomy should chair, not rule in Lancet 2010; 375: 368.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
2 comments:
If I get sick, I just want a trustable dr to tell me what to do, believing that he/she is acting to my best.
I don't really want some mask-face-guy to throw me a lecture on all the data and information, then ask me in-patiently, "now what will you choose?"
yes, I'm absolutely agree to TW. A patient who is willing to put his/her life on a doctor's hands is based on trust, deeply trust that he/she is acting to one's best but the fact turns out is the guy just takes the most on own benefit with many many excuses...
Post a Comment