Blissful Life

Category: practice

  • Personal Is Political in Professional Practice

    “Should a doctor treat an alcoholic who is injured due to drunk driving? Would your opinion change if it were just a solo accident v/s injuring/killing other people on the road?” asked @arshiet. The regular controversy. Should doctors judge their patients? Is it ethical to even ask the question of whether it is ethical for doctors to withhold treatment to anyone? What are the social determinants of alcohol use?

    The issue is straightforward in the emergency room. You save life first and worry about alcohol and justice later.

    But what about elective issues? If you are an obstetrician and you are pro-life, do you avoid elective abortions? If you are a pediatric surgeon and you consider circumcision as genital mutilation, do you avoid ritual circumcisions? Conscientious Objection – apparently that’s what it is called.

    One of the solutions offered is that the healthcare provider can be upfront about the moral position and arrange a different provider. This helps the patient to retain autonomy and the provider to retain moral clarity.

    Basically, doctors can’t simply cancel patients.

    If we refuse to see the doctor-patient relationship as special, we can see that what’s at play here is the tension between “personal is political”, cancel culture, etc on one side and the practical realities of the world on the other side. I’ve personally gone through the self-isolation of ideological purism and come out with the ideology that it is okay to be altruistically pragmatic.

    The world is full of people with incompatible ideas, values, and norms. If we start cancelling, we end up cancelling almost everyone. If we don’t cancel, we become an apolitical mess. The point is then about finding alternatives to canceling everyone. You cancel some, you strategically avoid some, you engage sincerely with some others.

    That intelligent, “nuanced”, intersectional approach to politics is called life.

  • Public Lives of Doctors?

    Social media has made our private life public. Facebook, Instagram, even WhatsApp (through stories) thrive on users generating engaging content. Often this content is snaps from daily life. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet can be generated in a second. Image centered social media platforms rely on this to keep themselves going.

    What about doctors (and other professionals) on social media? Is it any different for them? Should it be any different?

    This post has been triggered by the #MedBikini hashtag. Here’s one tweet that reveals what happened:

    This journal article considers social media posts where MDs hold alcohol, wear inappropriate attire, and give opinion on controversial social topics as “potentially unprofessional.” How would any of these adversely affect the care we give to patients? 😳 #MedBikini pic.twitter.com/G1iBuqtX8n

    — Ronnie Baticulon (@ronibats) July 24, 2020

    I will not spend a lot of time discussing this particular paper or the twitter response to it. But I will discuss sections from two of the references in this paper.

    A council set up by American Medical Association to address the subject of Professionalism in the Use of Social Media, included this paragraph in their report:

    Though there are some clear-cut lapses in professionalism that can and have been made online by physicians (such as violations of patient privacy or confidentiality, or photos of illegal drug use), there are many more situations that fall into a grey area.  Examples include photographs posted online of an inebriated physician, or sexually suggestive material, or the use of offensive language in a blog.  Any of these actions or behaviors would be considered inappropriate in the hospital, clinic, office, or other setting in which a physician is interacting with patients or other health care professionals in a professional manner.  However, whether physicians must maintain the same standards of conduct in how they present themselves outside the work environment is a more open question.  Physicians certainly have the right to have private lives and relationships in which they can express themselves freely, but they must also be mindful that their patients and the public see them first and foremost as professionals rather than private individuals and view physician conduct through the lens of their expectations about how an esteemed member of the community should behave.  Thus physicians must weigh the potential harms that may arise from presenting anything other than a professional presence on the Internet against the benefits of social interactions online.

    It is this particular paragraph that have been used when creating criteria for “potentially unprofessional” things in papers that followed. One of them has a section like this:

    Within the clearly unprofessional group, binge drinking, sexually suggestive photos, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations were the most commonly found variables. Examples of binge drinking included pictures of residents lining up 5 pints of beer in front of 1 dinner plate, doing “keg stands,”and making comments about being drunk or hungover. Examples of sexually suggestive photos included simulated oral sex, female residents in bikinis with hands pointing to their breasts, and a female resident simulating intercourse with a large cannon. Profanity was also encountered, as was a link to a racist cartoon.

    Within the “potentially unprofessional” group, pictures of residents with alcoholic drinks in their hands were the most frequently encountered. There were also several polarizing political and religious comments made by residents, and 2 instances of residents holding a gun while hunting


    We get a better picture (pun intended) here of what these papers are trying to hint. With that in the background let me talk about a couple of things from my professional life that I’ve thought quite a bit about.

    Alcohol

    Alcohol is a controversial topic among doctors (because many doctors consume alcohol). I do not consume alcohol. I actively dissuade people from consuming alcohol. You could call me anti-alcohol. I have certainly been influenced by Dr Dharav Shah’s campaign against alcohol and his argument for why we should create a negative attitude towards alcohol (the way we have towards smoking) is convincing. And I consider it hypocritical for doctors to be consuming alcohol.

    There are plenty of doctors who disagree. Some of them are of the opinion that social drinking is not a problem at all. They want to draw a line between alcoholism and social drinking and want to allow social drinking without it progressing to alcohol dependence.

    There are some doctors who agree that alcohol is indeed dangerous, but do not agree with the idea that it is hypocritical for doctors to be consuming alcohol while asking their patients to abstain. This is a very important argument.

    One part of the argument is that what doctors, as professionals, give out as advice in a professional setting is not applicable to doctors themselves. That I can talk to my patient about the importance of not eating rice excessively while still eating two full biriyanis a day. That professionals need not hold themselves to the standard that they’re prescribing for their clients.

    The other part of the argument is that what doctors do in their private lives should not be dictated by their profession. Superficially it makes sense. But does it stand scrutiny?

    Firstly, does private life stay private? As we noted in the case of social media above, the notion of a private life that is wholly disconnected from public life is Utopian. What happens when something a doctor does in their private life becomes public?

    Secondly, would you apply that logic when what the doctor does in their private life is something that you find morally reprehensible? Say the doctor in their private life engages in adultery, directing pornography, or working for BJP’s IT cell (not that I find all of these morally reprehensible). Would you be comfortable saying “it is their private life?”

    This leads to the other thing that I am constantly thinking about.

    The impression that a doctor “should” make

    How should a doctor appear in front of their patients?

    The trouble starts from the first day of medical school. There is a certain way you’re expected to be dressing. There is a “smart” appearance dictated by the higher-ups in the hierarchy which usually included (for me) shaved face, short hair well combed, clean new aprons, polished shoes, and so on.

    It goes deeper. In “Be the Doctor Each Patient Needs“, Hans Duvefelt tells this:

    “Doctors are performers, not only when we perform procedures, but also when we deliver a diagnosis or some guidance.”


    The point Dr Duvefelt makes is about the therapeutic effect of a doctor-patient relationship. As a doctor, you need your patient to believe in you and in turn your advice. I talked about how this complicates everything about the doctor-patient relationship in my post about consultation fees.

    The gist of the matter is that doctors might have to do things (like shaving their naturally growing beard) to appeal to the completely irrational gut-sense of their patients. Weird argument, right? I don’t like it either.

    I don’t like it that I have to feign confidence in what I’m saying even when the field of medicine is not 100% sure about anything. I don’t like it that the biases that patients make up based on the impression I leave influence their adherence to the treatment regimen I prescribe. But these are how humans think and act.

    This is exactly why people dress well for an interview. Why politicians are careful about how they’re being photographed. Why celebrities have a link with fashion. And why people put their degrees on their Twitter and LinkedIn handle.

    I hate this world.

    Unprofessional

    Last day a patient messaged me. On SMS and on Telegram. My telegram bio includes pictures of me from a long time back and also a link to my telegram channel where I post links to my own blog posts. For some reason I responded to the patient on SMS although it was easier to talk on Telegram. I am not sure what to think about it. But at that moment I was not feeling comfortable with using Telegram to talk to a patient. The reason is that I blog mostly about technology. And multiple times in the past have people assumed I know very little medicine when they find out how much I know about technology. I don’t want my patients to read my blogs.

    That brings us back to professionalism. Professionalism is defined by society’s sense of morality. And that is where bikini pictures appear potentially unprofessional and sexually suggestive images appear clearly unprofessional to some. The #MedBikini hashtag is either about stating that private lives of doctors should not matter to patients or about the idea that bikinis are not immoral, or both.

    I think the entire post has been devoted to the point about whether we should worry about what patients think about us or not.

    The morality of underwear pictures is something that deserves a detailed debate. I end with the following question. Are sexually suggestive images unprofessional? Why?

  • The Curious Case of Consultation Fees in General Practice

    Today as I was returning home in metro two lawyers occupied the seats next to mine. I was reading A Reader on Reading by Alberto Manguel. But I distinctly heard one of them tell the other “I have two cases tomorrow evening”. That set me thinking.

    Advocates have “cases” and so do doctors. Advocates have “clients” and so do doctors. (Some doctors call their clients patients because some clients are indeed patients. But some doctors call even their patients clients, appreciating the fact that ultimately the people who come to them are dignified individuals seeking a service and with autonomy in choosing service providers.)

    Advocates are also notorious for charging sometimes lakhs for an “appearance”. But here doctors have itt slightly different. Doctors also get called money-minded and unscrupulous, but they get called so for charging much less than what advocates usually charge. Why is this so?

    I came up with various possible reasons. One, the huge lawyer fees that we hear about usually are in big courts for defending big crimes. Perhaps the stakes are really high in those situations. To add to that, a court case is usually once in a lifetime situation for most people and one they probably have never encountered before. Therefore the clients are in a much more vulnerable situation and would be willing to pay a lot.

    This “high stakes” reason appears correct because there is similarity in healthcare. When you go to a hospital with a heart attack, you don’t care how much the hospital charges are going to be, you just want your (chest) pain free life back. But when you have a cold (which is probably the 14th time you are having it in your lifetime), you know it is going to be better in a few days and there is no real reason to spend lots of money.

    That probably explains why the market rates in general practice is very small. People usually present with simple illnesses and a sense that their illness is a simple one. Therefore there is not much value they are seeking from the doctor – most clients are in for quick relief from symptoms, if possible.

    Therein lies the complexity of general practice too. I’ll explain that in a bit, but first let us look at one more difference between lawyers and doctors. Lawyers take money from clients and work for clients by being sharp witted and coming up with strong legal arguments. But their “appearance” is in front of a judge. The favorable outcome is defined by the client but realizing that outcome requires very little of the client’s participation. Usually, the judgement made by the judge also unequivocally settles the judgement on the lawyer’s performance.

    Now let us talk about general practice. In general practice, your client does not just pay you, but also has to work with you for their own success. There is no third person involved. The client has to believe in the doctor, has to believe in the advice given by the doctor (that the advice is for their own good), has to follow the advice strictly, and also has to make a judgement about how good the entire process have been. This is where the previous point comes in.

    The reason why clients come to a general practitioner is often for quick relief from their symptom. Most of the time in medicine there is no quick relief which is also good. For example, painkillers are quick relief from pain due to strain. But the good thing to do maybe in many cases to take rest and allow body to recover. Common cold may slightly improve with nasal decongestants, but overuse maybe harmful. Sometimes sticking to medicines which cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or many other tolerable side effects are required in the face of greater dangers like multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.

    Sometimes the right thing to do in the view of a doctor maybe different from what the client thought would be the right thing to do. This would not be a problem for a lawyer as the client does not have a role in deciding the success of the lawyer’s approach to the “case”. But when doctors are in this situation they have to use all the skills they have in convincing the client about why there needs to be a change of expectations. And the success of the treatment itself relies on this “winning over” of the client.

    And after all that exercise, the client has to pay. ICUs, OTs, and emergency departments have it easy. There is a lot of money to be paid, but most of the work is done by nurses or doctors and the sick person usually just has to lie down on a bed (conscious or not). General practice? Totally different ball game.

    With that context, how much is a reasonable consultation fee in general practice? 50? 500? 1000?

    Before locking our answer, let us look this from another side. The general practitioner is a small entrepreneur. The GP has a home and has a life. The GP needs to make money to survive. But the GP is also a doctor. No conscientious doctor can do injustice to their profession or their clients. They cannot simply symptomatically treat diseases without thinking about root causes. Diseases have to be managed correctly. Counseling is an important aspect of treatment. And all of that requires time – time to be spent in consultation. And time is money.

    The question on consultation fee thus has to be somehow linked to the consultation duration. What is the minimum time a doctor should spend with their client to fulfill their obligation/duty? There can of course not be a single answer to this as every consultation is different. But practically, from my experience, in a single person clinic the doctor (who is the single person) has to spend at least 20 if not 30 minutes in a consultation for there to be some quality.

    How much of that can be delegated? Whom to delegate to? Of course in a single doctor clinic the only person to delegate to is the client themselves. Can clients prefill questionnaires about their health condition? Can clients read informational pamphlets instead of having to listen it directly from the doctor? Does trust suffer in attempting such time saving measures? These are all questions with no definite answers.

    Does building a healthcare team help? It can definitely help. At Restore Health we have a multi-disciplinary team where a lot of tasks are shared. But still there is considerable amount of time spent by each person of the team in providing care to a client. And we charge 500 in general practice consultations. Are there people who think that is too much? Definitely, yes. Including sometimes our own doctors. But there are times when we have saved the client a lot of money and good health and spent considerably more time in the process. We do not have “dynamic pricing”.

    Perhaps there needs to be more thought put into showcasing all the value that is created by a GP and monetizing some of that at least. All this while treading on the right side of ethics and not breaking the delicate thread of trust that connects a client to a doctor. Who says general practice is not challenging?

    My train of thought was derailed when the train I was sitting in reached my destination. As I stood up to deboard, the lawyer next to me took my seat. Perhaps she was thinking about how much to charge her next client. Perhaps not.