"Would the doctor even tell you if there was a problem going on?"

[grendslori]

There is a post here on the forum that has really taken off from legal matters to patients trying to figure out how screwed up the health care system is here and abroad (the UK). One of the topics throughout that post is whether or not a doctor would even tell you if there was a problem; I wanted to keep this going to see if any of you have found this to be the case.

I do want to address Kenkeith as he believes a doctor would never withhold information, even life threatening information, which happened in our case. (we were told our daughter had nothing wrong with her heart at 6 years other than WPW. She had a severe cardiomyopathy (HCM), ended up in heart failure by 13 and had to have a transplant at 22) Doctors do have issues with patients even going as far as to not treat them while they are hospitalized. Here's an example, Ken, I would like to know what you think about this:

My daughter was seen at a major medical center who had a pediatric cardiology department with 2 physicians; one being her doctor. She went into A-Fib (which could have killed her because of the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy; this is a very serious problem because of the HCM) The night she was admitted, her own cardiologist was there, but he left for a week the following day. The other cardiologist refused to take care of her for that week; we saw him several times because he had one of his patients on the same floor . He never once came to see our daughter or do anything to help her, not even when she had to be transferred to the CCU  (Coronary Care Unit) when she got into trouble one night, The residents on the floor took care of her, even though they didn't really know what they were doing either. ( I can't blame them for that one) What do you think about a doctor like that? (Don't kid yourself, our doctor was absolutely LIVID when he returned the following week. So not only have doctors withheld information from us; they have gone as far as to not treating her! Remember that if a doctor does not tell you something, you don't know about it unless you really understand exactly what is going on to ask the right questions. I knew the questions to ask and all it got me was a doctor and his group of 10-12 Fellows who were obviously TORKED off at my audasity to even question them! We have been all over this country to the best medical facilities this country has to offer from Houston's Medical Centers ,to The National Insitutes of Health; we've seen good doctors and bad, believe me! There are A LOT of doctors out there who withold information from their patients; they judge you on how they think you will react to what they say and if they see any panic, they watch what they say, just the same as when medical records get rewritten saying tests were done on a certain day, even if you have had a blotched up surgery. (My major surgery actually disappeared from my hospital records and was replaced with a cath report that had actually been done 5 years earlier!!)  So, as I asked earlier, what do you think about things like these happening? ( I do want to add a note that the doctors who first diagnosed my daughter as being perfectly fine were in the UK, not the US)

Anyone else out there have experiences like this?    

[kenkeith]

Jon, focused on the point that the original post didn't make sense and there isn't much to add.  But it seems you were/are mostly conclusion oriented with your dialogue.  Conclusions are not facts as has indirectly been pointed out....and now say it probably happens with some frequency is another conclusion...but it is a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. Case closed.:)

[nickppatel]

No no, I'm not saying it's rampant - I was being unclear; my fault.  I'm just saying it probably happens with some frequency.  The medical profession as a whole - at least ethically - is respectable.

[erijon]

I understand your point, but one case should not be used as a reason to believe this is rampant among the medical profession. There will always be exceptions, doesn't mean there's an underlying environment of dishonesty and incompetence in the system, not a fair point of conjecture.

Just my opinion..............

[nickppatel]

The paragraph you quoted wasn't really in response to anything you'd said.  It was an original assertion.  I think we're talking past each other.  I'm not suggesting that a doctor would withhold life-saving information.  I'm talking about an ACTUAL CASE in which a doctor did not inform his patient of a diagnosis because he thought nothing could be done to help her.  He was wrong - something could be done.  And my point is that the doctor should never withhold a diagnosis because (1) the patient has a right to know, and (2) if he's withholding the diagnosis because he thinks nothing can be done, he damn well better be right that nothing can be done, or else the damages in a lawsuit will have him jumping out of a building.  

Now, whether you can believe that a doctor would do this or not isn't really the point - it happened, it went to trial, the doctor admitted it, and it's recorded in a dusty legal reporter somewhere.  Facts are not up for debate.  Now I'm asserting that if this happened once, it probably has happened a lot - we just haven't heard about it.  The latter statement certainly is up for debate, because I have nothing to back it up.

[erijon]

You are taking my statements out of context, but I expect that from a lawyer:)

"It is PARTICULARLY egregious when the doctor withholds information thinking nothing can be done to help the patient when the doctor is ignorant about treatments that are available.  The doctor has a legal duty to his patient to act in accordance with standards of care that are commonly accepted in the medical community.  Unfortunately for the doctor of whom I speak, ignorance and failing to keep up with the medical literature is not an excuse.  The law agrees."

To say a competent doctor withholds life saving or pertinent information is ridiculous and you know it.  It would be no different than a lawyer learning something that would set his client free but decides to keep it to himself just because he can, it makes no sense. You can argue the point all you want, but competent doctors that have spent a good portion of their lives not to mention acquiring a huge debt to their profession would risk everything by withholding necessary information just doesn't hunt, sorry. Can there be incompetence, yes. However this is the vast minority as incompetent doctors don't last too long and dishonesty just does not run rampant in the medical profession. There simply is nothing to gain but the loss of a career is a real consequence.

I am not impressed by some one taking my statements a twisting them so twist away, it will be good practice:)

[nickppatel]

"I just don't think a doctor would take the time to test and diagnose a patient and then think, "I believe I'll just keep this information to myself". Why would a competent doctor find a life threatening condition and with hold that information?"

"There are legitimate reasons for a doctor to withhold something if it has no prognostic value."

Guess you answered your own question.

The statement that you quoted above makes sense just fine.  It is not the doctor's place to withhold medical information from his patient.  The patient has legal rights, and knowing about his or her medical condition constitutes a big part of those rights.

It is PARTICULARLY egregious when the doctor withholds information thinking nothing can be done to help the patient when the doctor is ignorant about treatments that are available.  The doctor has a legal duty to his patient to act in accordance with standards of care that are commonly accepted in the medical community.  Unfortunately for the doctor of whom I speak, ignorance and failing to keep up with the medical literature is not an excuse.  The law agrees.

Don't misunderstand me.  I have great respect for many physicians, but they tend to be academics at large university hospitals who keep up with the literature and don't provide medical care in situations about which they are ignorant.