|
|
Lost
in Translation?
The
traditional view is strongly paternalistic. Bound to the Hippocratic oath, the
fatherly physician is commited to the patient's well being, his own best
possible skills, personal integrity and privacy. "Salus aegroti suprema
lex" (the well-being of the patient is the supreme law) and "primum
nihil nocere" (first of all do not harm ) are the principle professional
rules. As a benevolent father-figure, it is the doctor who decides. Enlightment
and The French Revolution brought about a fundamentally egalitarian approach.
Questioning authoritative rule eventually leads to the, nowadays, widely
accepted concepts of "informed consent" and "shared decision
making", promoting patient
competence and autonomy. Negotiating disagreements becomes possible, the
prevention of abuse and exploitation of the subordinate easier. Instead of
command and obedience, two individuals with equal rights make a contract. And
finally, it is the patient who decides. Sounds
good, but where does this leave us? The egalitarian model is easily applied to
buyer and seller at the marketplace, where the buyer looks for a certain product
or service and makes an informed decision after having checked price and
quality. But is a patient's need for aid when in distress and crisis the same
thing as buying a new vacuum cleaner, a favourable mobile phone tarif or an
attractive spa package? The
more fit a patient is, the more he is able to act like a competent consumer. By
means of the internet he is sometimes better informed about specific details
than his doctor. The greater a patient’s distress however, and the younger,
older or more sick he is, the less important autonomous negotiating might be for
him. Between
doctor and patient, duties and responsibilities are shared in a very
asymmetrical manner. Unlike the doctor, whose health remains in a comfortable
and safe position, the patient, may be in a situation of life and death, his
physical integrity in question as well as having responsibilities for loved
ones. So in everyday medical practice, a third option must often be considered:
The patient wants the doctor to decide for him. This
doesn't make things easier, however. Medical doctors still hold a high social
status in public opinion polls and achieve remarkable income levels. Enormous
technical progress has added to the reputation of the profession. Consequently,
doctors are confronted with high expectations by society as a whole and by the
individual patient. But something has gone wrong. Numerous
publications highlight serious deficits in medical care, pointing to an
increasing mutual alienation between doctors and patients. A gap of mistrust
seems to have opened. Patients have become cautious because they know or have
heard of doctors motivated by pressure from their administrations and lured by
bonus payments to prescribe more expensive drugs, more lucrative diagnostic
interventions and higher-priced surgical procedures; all potentially harmful.
Alternative medicine may seem less of a hazard. At the same time, patients seem to be
fighting back. We are seeing a surge in malpractice and negligence suits, and
many collegues feel the pressure of receiving bad patient ratings in online
portals. To heal the breach of trust, doctors must
account for the current state of medicine and decide which kind of medical care
they actually prefer. Today,
academic medicine is going through a dramatic structural change which is
characterized by the rule of economy, bureaucracy
and technology. Bernard Lown, renowned cardiologist, compellingly describes the
far-reaching consequences for everyday medical practice in his book "The
lost art of healing" (1). We are confronted with a radical erosion of human
medicine in its original sense. What is lost, is the specifically human element.
It
seems as if the trustful and sustainable doctor-patient-relationship has become
a side issue. In this way medicine is losing its soul and becoming a technical
engineering craft. In addition, clinical procedures are often Tayloristically
elaborate, not only in operating theaters, but wherever they are performed. Such
a development is not without consequences for the status of a profession in
society. By means of historical examples, Richard Sennett describes the social
decline of once highly respected professions (as was the case with the potter
profession in ancient Greece), which is caused by increasing dominance of purely
technical processes using mainly manual labor (2). In
this respect, it is highly alarming that personal and “talking medicine” is
increasingly outsourced to non-medical professions (pedagogues, psychologists,
social workers, etc.). Alongside, and to the detriment of, Cardiology, Oncology
or Diabetology we see the establishing of non-medical Psycho-Cardiology,
Psycho-Oncology or Psycho-Diabetology. Instead of the present traditional family
doctor, we might soon see a non-medical family therapist taking over the verbal
and general counselling care. This
split is something patients definitely do not want. It's simply of no use to a
suffering patient to have on the one side the medical equivalent of a plumber or clockmaker to repair the broken engine and on the other side a
friendly talking psycho-conversation-partner, who doesn't know any more about
the subject matter at stake than the patient himself. After a myocardial
infarction, with the diagnosis of
breast cancer or with a threatening somatoform symptom, a patient has a
justified wish to be cared for by a doctor, who is both medically competent and
compassionate. It is an appallingly distressing experience for a patient, in a
short session, to be fully informed, according to all legal standards, about the
diagnosis of, for example, malignant lymphoma by the responsible oncologist and
then to be sent afterwards to an appointment with a psycho-oncologist to talk
over the emotional elements. The
consequence of this is that frustrated patients turn away from scientific
medicine, and unhappy doctors seek jobs outside medical care in research,
counseling, journalism or administration. It
makes no big difference if doctor and patient meet for the first time in an
emergency room, strangers to one another, than if they had already had a couple
of appointments in the assessment of rectal hemorrhage, if they collaborate on a
regular basis in the treatment of rheumatic arthritis, or if they are even
engaged in a psychotherapy meeting once a week. Whatever
the setting, they face the demanding task of establishing a trustful and
sustainable relationship. Coming from two very different worlds, the patient
with his suffering, the medical problem and his psycho-social history and the
doctor with his medical expertise and the promise to help, they have to get
acquainted with one another in order to accomplish the common goal of relief, or
hopefully even healing. Numerous
challenges have to be met. The average conversation time in a personal contact
between patient and doctor is said to be less than ten minutes. After fifteen
seconds the patient's speech is interrupted, either by the doctor's questions,
or having to check the computer monitor, or other tasks such as filling in forms
(3). Only half of the information conveyed by the doctor is properly understood
by the patient and half of this again forgotten after half an hour. It is
perfectly clear that medicine by the minute leaves no room for sufficient
understanding, let alone exchange. This
is in strong contrast to the requirements of adequate medical care and efficient
treatment. About
ten percent of the urban population suffer from psychosomatic disorders, mostly
somatoform disorders with functional somatic syndromes accounting for the
majority (4). The prevalence in family doctor's practices goes up to some thirty
or forty percent and reaches up to sixty percent in secondary care, e. g.
specialised neurological or gynecological units (5). The clinical spectrum
ranges from chronic pain syndromes such as headache or back-pain, over syndromes
with compromised organ function such as vertigo, tinnitus, arrythmias,
hyperventilation, irritable bowel or sexual dysfunction, to more generalised
pictures such as agitation or burn-out (6). Psychocomatics considers the crucial
role of emotional factors in pathogenesis here. If
speaking with a patient is considered important, then listening is
indispensable. Being in tune with the patient, applying the art of careful
active listening, means listening with the "third ear". This enables
the doctor to understand subliminal, hidden messages and to discover those
problems the patient is not yet able to communicate in an open and direct
manner. As Balint put it, if the patient could clearly name his problem, he
would not have to present a symptom (7). Patients with psychosomatic disorders are especially difficult to deal with. Whereas “ordinary” patients might be expectant and vulnerable, psychosomatic patients in particular are additionally prone to feeling disappointed, insulted, hurt and abandoned by their doctor. Often limited in their abilities to adequately express their fears and wishes, they make their medical counterpart offer help by proposing medical actions in the form of prescribing drugs, suggesting additional diagnostic procedures or even recommending surgical interventions. Doctors
do so especially when confronted with affect-laden signals from their patients,
for example, when confronted with statements like, "Doctor, I can't stand
this back pain anymore", "my head is burning like fire", or,
"this tears my heart into pieces". Overstrained and overwhelmed by the
patient's relational attitude it seems a way out is to at least present a
medical “gift” (8). "Ut aliquid fiat" (to do something) may be one
of the most frequent indications in medicine. As one collegue put it,
"sending that patient to another CT-scan bought me one month of peace and
quiet". This example shows that doctors, in their desperation, sometimes
reject their patients by sending them to unnecessary examinations or referring
them to another colleague. If in the back of the patients mind is the notion
that evidence based medicine cannot understand their suffering and is even
rejecting them, then alternative medicines gain appeal, which is a dangerous
trend if left unchecked. In
order to offer these patients adequate care, skills and knowledge in
understanding and handling patients emotionally difficult for the doctor are
necessary. Doctors' widespread wish to offer comprehensive help, including
somatic and psycho-social support, is specifically realized in Psychosomatic
Medicine. Apart from specialist training, there are several opportunities.
Balint-groups and courses in primary psychosomatic care are especially helpful
for every physician responsible for medical care, whether it be conservative
medicine or surgery. As
Edward Weiss wrote in 1943, the crucial point in psychosomatics is "not to
study the soma less; it only means to study the psyche more" (9). 2.
Sennett
R. The Craftsman. 3.
Bär
T. Die
spontane Gesprächszeit von Patienten zu Beginn des Arztgesprächs in der hausärztlichen
Praxis. Dissertation, Charité
2009 4.
Schepank
H:
Psychogene Erkrankungen der Stadtbevölkerung – eine epidemiologische Studie
in Mannheim. 5. Nimnuan C, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Medically unexplained symptoms. An epidemiological study in seven specialities. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2001, Volume 51, Issue 1, 361-367 6. Henningsen P, Zipfel S, Herzog W. Management of functional somatic syndromes. Lancet. 2007 Mar 17;369(9565):946-55. 7.
Balint,
M. The doctor, his patient and the illness. 8. Ring A, Dowrick C, Humphris G, Salmon P. Do patients with unexplained physical symptoms pressurise general practitioners for somatic treatment? A qualitative study. BMJ 2004;328:1057 9.
Weiss
E. Psychosomatic Aspects of Allergic Disorders. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1947 Nov;
3(11): 604–630. |