We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Human beings are omnivorous critters, by design. They should remain so, except for broccoli. My personal view? Meat, potatoes, and some iceberg lettuce salad - I'm 84 and working and still going strong, and I'd never eat a vitamin - poisonous junk. Heck, some folks mistake me for 80: Click here: BBC NEWS | Health | Children 'harmed' by vegan diets
Count me as one Doc who will never be sued. Why? I "go bare" - no malpractice insurance - and what little I own belongs to my wife and my grown-up kids. Not to mention that, corny as it sounds, I care a lot about my patients and I think they know that, but there's a bad apple in every barrel. Here's yet another blogging Doc - Click here: So many lawyers, so little time... - and I have excerpted a piece of a recent essay of his below, which explains the effects of the trial lawyers on medical practice these days (read entire by clicking above):
A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine asserted that we do too many colonoscopies. Physicians just can't let go of the old guidelines, it seems, and the result is unnecesary scopes. This study received a lot of flak on scientific grounds, and no doubt will remain a source of controversy for quite some time.
My response is not so scientific: studies like this really chap my hide.
If a patient requests a colonoscopy and you don't perform one because it doesn't adhere to existing guidelines, God help you if the patient ends up having colon cancer. If the patient requests ANY test and you don't order it because in your judgment it isn't necessary, God help you if the patient ends up with a serious disease that could have been diagnosed with the "unnecessary" test.
Lawyers think this is a good thing. "When it comes to my health," my lawyer intoned, "I want you guys to practice defensive medicine. I don't want you to miss anything at all, even if it's rare and requires lots of expensive tests to diagnose."
Whether we like it or even acknowledge it, the "leave no stone unturned and damn the expense" has become the standard of carefor Americanmedicine.