Why Do People Follow Medical Authorities? - Page 8

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

I've had WIC and I've never known vaxes or well checks to be mandatory. Lead tests, yes. The nurse at the health department can do that. 

I feel like natural medical professionals get way less flack about their mistakes and attitudes than MD's do. I love my ped and my ob, but I think my chiropractor (and honestly, all of the chiropractors Ive ever met (totalling 6) is a quack. Just my opinion. 

I had an ob that was terrible before, and I dumped him for this ob. I interviewed peds in depth before choosing her, and got recommendations from everyone I knew beforehand. I have medicaid, and live in a rural place, but healthcare is a huge priority for us. Im not going to see a crappy doctor just because of location- Ill make sacrifices to drive to the doctor that is on the same page with me. 

Ok. More devil's advocate.

If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to make sacrifices to get to be seen by a good doc?

If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to talk to everyone you know to get recommendations?

If there are so many good and well informed doctors, why are there places like MDC where folks can get help with breastfeeding issues, sleeping issues, vomiting issues, etc?

[Cynthia Mosher]

I have removed one post of personal attack and issued an infraction to the poster and removed her from the thread. If you are going to post, please talk about the subject and not the person. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by pek64 

I'm glad that you've known more good than bad. That explains why you give doctors the benefit of the doubt. I've known more bad than good, by at least a two thirds to one third ratio. That explains why I take what a doctor says with caution. We both are reasonable.

That was kind of my point

[IdentityCrisisMama]

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

If I need legal advice I ask a lawyer. If I need advice on money issues I'll talk to someone who is an expert in that.

 If I need medical advice I like to talk to a medical expert. It's as simple as that for me.

 Medical professionals have spent years studying how the body works and the various problems it can have. I consider myself a smart person, but I do not think I can catch up with them after a little bit of reading of webMD (or similar), although it can help to arrive at the appointment informed to persuade them to talk to me like an adult! ;) 

I do think it's a crying shame how little trust many people have in the medical industry. I think that's a massive problem, and something I hope the current training for medical professionals is addressing. 

I will probably respond more as I finish reading the thread. :)

I have had a very unusual life with an amount and variety of trauma almost never studied. They won't study people like me because it is too hard. There are too many variables. I have been in court ordered therapy since I was three. I have spent a lot of time in lobbies and waiting rooms. My brother was hit by a car when I was eight. I spent many months not enrolled in any kind of school just sitting around long-term-care hospitals. I have read a rather ridiculous amount about the brain. No, I have not been to medical school.

I have friends who have been in grad school over the past ten years. I spend hundreds of hours every year reading medical journals about research on my field of trauma. Because when I pick a random doctor they have no fucking clue how to treat me. Finding therapists is nightmarish.

No, I don't trust medical authorities. They know what they know but expected to be deferred to on areas outside their specialty. No thanks. I have read hundreds of medical textbooks on neuroscience and neurobiology. No really. I get fucking pissed off when a fucking doctor talks down to me.

I trust individual people to the degree that they earn my trust. No I don't trust an industry that has no interest in finding out why I'm not exactly like everyone else.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by pek64 


Ok. More devil's advocate.
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to make sacrifices to get to be seen by a good doc?
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to talk to everyone you know to get recommendations?
If there are so many good and well informed doctors, why are there places like MDC where folks can get help with breastfeeding issues, sleeping issues, vomiting issues, etc?

I think this is starting to play back into the kind of black and white thinking that originated the question - the issue of absolute blind trust vs. total suspicion and contempt.

There are good doctors - you may have to look for them.  Just like there are good midwives, and you may have to hunt for them, too - or drive far away (common on here).  The point of that, to me, was to assert that those who are unhappy with a care provider COULD possibly be very happy with another MD.  There is no need to write off an entire profession, when the differences between care providers are often individual, ykwim?

The argument isn't whether doctors are infallible, so there is no need to point out that there are doctors who are worth avoiding or whose advice leaves something to be desired.  I think everyone agrees on that point.  Not all natural health professionals are rockstars either.

I think the post about having 2/3 negative experiences vs. 2/3 good experiences hit closer to the heart of it - and some of that is also confirmation bias, once it gets to that point.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I will probably respond more as I finish reading the thread. :)

I have had a very unusual life with an amount and variety of trauma almost never studied. They won't study people like me because it is too hard. There are too many variables. I have been in court ordered therapy since I was three. I have spent a lot of time in lobbies and waiting rooms. My brother was hit by a car when I was eight. I spent many months not enrolled in any kind of school just sitting around long-term-care hospitals. I have read a rather ridiculous amount about the brain. No, I have not been to medical school.

I have friends who have been in grad school over the past ten years. I spend hundreds of hours every year reading medical journals about research on my field of trauma. Because when I pick a random doctor they have no fucking clue how to treat me. Finding therapists is nightmarish.

No, I don't trust medical authorities. They know what they know but expected to be deferred to on areas outside their specialty. No thanks. I have read hundreds of medical textbooks on neuroscience and neurobiology. No really. I get fucking pissed off when a fucking doctor talks down to me.

I trust individual people to the degree that they earn my trust. No I don't trust an industry that has no interest in finding out why I'm not exactly like everyone else.

I completely agree about medical professionals overstepping their bounds - I wouldn't trust an environmental lawyer to represent me in a criminal trial.  I also totally agree about trusting individual people to the degree they earn your trust - I think some of us are saying we have doctors who fall into that category, on a doctor by doctor, person by person basis.  

[contactmaya]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

How are well checks and vaxes quasi-mandatory?

There was a debate in this forum (but not this thread) about whether obligating vaccinations to attend schools amounts to 'mandatory' or not. I said 'quasi mandatory', that means, almost mandatory, or, you could infer, as good as mandatory, or you could infer, not completely, but certainly almost mandatory. If your'e interested in the finer points of that particularly debate refer to that thread.   Up to you to decide whether or not the school requirement for vaxes  which are obtained from a medical doctor, amounts to 'mandatory visit to the doctor' or not. I send my kids to school, so yes, that means mandatory for me. But that is OT to this thread.  I brought it up to illustrate that there may seem to be more 'doctor bashing'  because there is a requirement to see doctors for many things, but not the same requirement to see alternative practitioners. Therefore,   doctors, indeed should be held to higher standard.

As a result, i disagree that there is a double standard  referred to earlier in this thread.

As for WIC and lead tests,  the nurses will do the lead test, but only if you already have a relationship with their pediatrician.

[contactmaya]

Originally Posted by pek64 


Ok. More devil's advocate.
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to make sacrifices to get to be seen by a good doc?
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to talk to everyone you know to get recommendations?
If there are so many good and well informed doctors, why are there places like MDC where folks can get help with breastfeeding issues, sleeping issues, vomiting issues, etc?

Absolutely.

[CatsCradle]

I have a bunch of work to do today but somehow got sucked into reading this whole thread.  I'll throw in my two cents simply because I might have a different perspective (if not already stated somewhere here).  A little background:  I'm an attorney, not a doctor, but I think there are a lot of similarities between the two professions in terms of ethics, professionalism and the requirement to stay informed and knowledgable on issues as it pertains to one's practice.  I also think there are engrained cultural biases that play into peoples' perceptions of both.

Both require a significant amount of "client" contact.  Herein, I think is the biggest challenge.  When I was in law school (and I imagine that it is the same for medical/dental/other students), the focus was on learning the theories, the law, the consequences, etc.  Law school was purely academic.  I came out of law school with proverbial pistols loaded ready to apply all that "knowledge" that I had aquired in law school.  Problem was, no one had taught me anything about the most important aspect of my practice:  the client.  I understand now that the purpose of law school, more or less, is to provide the foundation.  Upon entering the profession, I was fortunate in that I had some great mentors who guided me in the fine art of client management.  One of the harsh realities that I learned was:  all clients are different and have different needs.  One thing that they do have in common, though, is that they want the best result for their particular circumstances.  This means that I can't apply a cookie cutter law school approach to everyone's needs.  The best lawyer, in my opinion, asks the client a lot of questions.  A lot of questions.  This is the only way that you can proceed to get the best result for your client. 

I've seen the same approach in the medical profession.  We actually have a great pediatrician who listens to us and spends time discussing how our desires and options can work best.  This is what makes a great doctor...someone who doesn't take a cookie cutter approach to every patient and who respects his/her patients.  I've had a couple of distasteful experiences with other doctors who seem to not give a rat's rear end.  The ability to communicate with the client/patient and the ability to tailor your practice to the clients' needs is paramount.  Personally I think that a lot people in the licensed professions never learn this (I can think of a number of lawyers that I've run across that have the exact problem). 

That all being said, I really do think that the problem lies in the professionals' inability to move past the academic setting into the real world and all its nuances.  One thing I know is that I have to keep learning.  Law, like medicine, is not a static thing.  There are some truths that don't change, but even in my profession the application of what I do is constantly evolving. I think there is this engrained perception that people in the licensed professions are smart, and therefore should have the last word (between:  I'm not implying that I'm smart...LOL!).  But, I really do think that as rapidly as the world is changing, the academically smart people need to do a better job of catching up with the program.  Just my unsolicited two cents!

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by pickle18 

There are good doctors - you may have to look for them.  Just like there are good midwives, and you may have to hunt for them, too - or drive far away (common on here).  The point of that, to me, was to assert that those who are unhappy with a care provider COULD possibly be very happy with another MD.  There is no need to write off an entire profession, when the differences between care providers are often individual, ykwim?

(bolding mine) I feel kind of staggered by the amount of privilege going on with this set of assumptions. If you haven't found a trustworthy doctor it is because you haven't hunted hard enough or been willing to drive far enough or been willing to pay enough money.

When I was 8 I needed a root canal and we had MediCal. The only dentist who would work on me was a brutal nasty frightening man. He didn't properly anesthetize me and he hit me for crying while he drilled.

Often people use bad medical providers because they don't have a choice. When they later have to make another choice to see a doctor they may or may not be in a position to pick and choose who they want... it's terrifying. Heart stoppingly terrifying.

People tend to live in pockets where there are a lot of good ______ or a lot of bad ________. A lot of this is income based--not regional. There are richer and poorer pockets to every state in the union and every country in the world. "Nicer" areas have better doctors/dentists/mechanics/whatever. Those with money have choices.

Poor people have the people who are willing to work with them. The folks who choose to go work for worse wages with more difficult demographics are rarely the most sterling examples of their profession.

People *can not* step out of their life experience to only care about "population studies" and make decisions based on that. I have been nastily brutalized over and over by medical providers. Expecting me to just not care about that is ridiculous. 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by pickle18 

I think this is starting to play back into the kind of black and white thinking that originated the question - the issue of absolute blind trust vs. total suspicion and contempt.

There are good doctors - you may have to look for them.  Just like there are good midwives, and you may have to hunt for them, too - or drive far away (common on here).  The point of that, to me, was to assert that those who are unhappy with a care provider COULD possibly be very happy with another MD.  There is no need to write off an entire profession, when the differences between care providers are often individual, ykwim?

The argument isn't whether doctors are infallible, so there is no need to point out that there are doctors who are worth avoiding or whose advice leaves something to be desired.  I think everyone agrees on that point.  Not all natural health professionals are rockstars either.

I think the post about having 2/3 negative experiences vs. 2/3 good experiences hit closer to the heart of it - and some of that is also confirmation bias, once it gets to that point.

I think the reason for the debate is because on other threads there has been a few who speak often of the advice of their doctors, as though the rest of us should accept the word of a doctor who has not earned the trust of the rest of us.

That led to what seemed to be a 'why don't you trust doctors?' attitude.

Those of who had more bad than good experiences are making it clear why we won't accept the word of a medical representative without first evaluating the individual and determining if trust should be given.

[Rrrrrachel]

I must've missed, on other threads, where people expected others to take the word of their personal doctor.  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by contactmaya 

As a result, i disagree that there is a double standard  referred to earlier in this thread.

I think they need to be held to a higher standard given the nature of what they do.  They prescribe pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical usage has a lot of inherent dangers (and benefits) where as most activities suggested by alternative practitioners do not carry the same degree of risk.

Article - for those who will read Mercola

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/14/which-are-more-dangerous-alternative-medicines-or-prescription-drugs.aspx

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/alternative_medicines_2412100333.html

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

(bolding mine) I feel kind of staggered by the amount of privilege going on with this set of assumptions. If you haven't found a trustworthy doctor it is because you haven't hunted hard enough or been willing to drive far enough or been willing to pay enough money.

When I was 8 I needed a root canal and we had MediCal. The only dentist who would work on me was a brutal nasty frightening man. He didn't properly anesthetize me and he hit me for crying while he drilled.

Often people use bad medical providers because they don't have a choice. When they later have to make another choice to see a doctor they may or may not be in a position to pick and choose who they want... it's terrifying. Heart stoppingly terrifying.

People tend to live in pockets where there are a lot of good ______ or a lot of bad ________. A lot of this is income based--not regional. There are richer and poorer pockets to every state in the union and every country in the world. "Nicer" areas have better doctors/dentists/mechanics/whatever. Those with money have choices.

Poor people have the people who are willing to work with them. The folks who choose to go work for worse wages with more difficult demographics are rarely the most sterling examples of their profession.

People *can not* step out of their life experience to only care about "population studies" and make decisions based on that. I have been nastily brutalized over and over by medical providers. Expecting me to just not care about that is ridiculous. 

I think you are misunderstanding me.  My statement was referring to something said by Adaline'sMama - who, by the way, said she is on medicaid.  She said she has a good doctor because she worked hard to find one, within those limitations.  My only point to pek64 was that just because bad doctors exist, that doesn't mean all doctors are bad - there are good ones, though you may have to try hard to find them.  Glass half full or half empty kind of thing.  To me, that effort is simply to be expected, because of the kinds of factors you mentioned (demographic), the individual values of the client, the temperament of the professional (and the fact that doctors are individuals) etc.  To her, it may be evidence that there is an unacceptably high number of crappy doctors.

I absolutely understand that some will not have a choice - I addressed that in a previous post, when I asked those who aren't inclined to trust *any* doctor, whether they felt that might be due to limitations on who they we able to see, and bad experiences resulting from that.  So, your response is helpful, because it answered that question in the affirmative.

I don't think anything I said was based on privilege.  Do some people only have one option?  Sure, and it might suck.  Do some people not have the gas money to drive to a different doctor, or the ability to spend less elsewhere to do so?  Maybe not - again, Adaline'sMama mentioned this was a priority for her.  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by pek64 


I think the reason for the debate is because on other threads there has been a few who speak often of the advice of their doctors, as though the rest of us should accept the word of a doctor who has not earned the trust of the rest of us.
That led to what seemed to be a 'why don't you trust doctors?' attitude.
 

This has been my interpretation as well.  You are not alone.

I still do not understand the point of a statement such as:

"I trust my doctor. I vaccinate."  *

….unless it is to imply that those who do not vaccinate do not trust their doctors?  Trying to paint non-vaxxers as anti-doctor is assumptive and annoying.

On the flip side, I have met people who do not like or trust doctors but still vaccinate.

I don't think trusting a doctor (unless it is blind trust) is a huge factor in vaccination.

_________

*  I did try to find statements like the one I wrote above and failed,  so perhaps they do not occur as often as I think. They are just memorable when they do!

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by pek64 


Ok. More devil's advocate.
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to make sacrifices to get to be seen by a good doc?
If there are so many good doctors, why do you have to talk to everyone you know to get recommendations?
If there are so many good and well informed doctors, why are there places like MDC where folks can get help with breastfeeding issues, sleeping issues, vomiting issues, etc?

I dont have to make sacrifices to see a "good" doc, just to see the doc that I am most compatible with. That doesnt mean that there are no "good" doctors around me, just that they dont do things the way that I personally prefer.

I talk to everyone I know about recommendations for plumbers, contractors, hairstylists, and babysitters too. I like to know that Im making the best decision I can make. 

And as far as "why are there places like MDC".....umm...because a lot of MDC is about parenting issues, not medical issues. And come on, what momma wouldnt rather hear advice from 30 moms who have had a similar experience than from a doctor that may or may not have ever breastfed or had kids. Theres a forum for almost everything in the world now days, that doesnt mean that professionals are bad or wrong. It means that people like to talk to their peer group about issues that they are having. And let's face it, people on MDC are not always right. No one should be adhering medical advice from this website alone. 

Originally Posted by pickle18 

There are good doctors - you may have to look for them.  Just like there are good midwives, and you may have to hunt for them, too - or drive far away (common on here).  The point of that, to me, was to assert that those who are unhappy with a care provider COULD possibly be very happy with another MD.  There is no need to write off an entire profession, when the differences between care providers are often individual, ykwim?

Exactly. Also, I want to point out that "good" is relative. What's "good" for me is a doctor that understands that I do a lot of my own research, and I dont want to be talked down to or spoken to like Im an idiot. I can handle the details, and in fact, I want them. All of them. I dont make decisions about health lightly, and I expect them to work with me by keeping that in mind. I delyaed vaxes, will never circ, use limited medications and dont run to the doctor everytime something is wrong. 

For someone else a "good" doctor might be who can explain all the medical information to them in a way that they can understand, someone who performs the best circs, someone whose office they dont have to wait very long in to be seen, someone who takes their every concern seriously and will make sure that their child is getting treated when they are sick. (as opposed to my doctor, who will usually say, "Ah, its no big deal, lets give it a few days and see". )

[pek64]

Some people do not have a car to drive to see a different doctor. Sometimes choices are limited.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I must've missed, on other threads, where people expected others to take the word of their personal doctor.  

I received a flag about this post. Rrrrrachel, would you please clarify your intent with this comment? Are stating (without any snark) that you simply missed this? Or is your comment meant to doubt that something like this was said?  Or something else? Confusion about this sort of comment has derailed many a thread. 

Everyone has been great about asking and answering questions -- let's keep the spirit of that open. 

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Some people do not have a car to drive to see a different doctor. Sometimes choices are limited.

Respectfully, that is not the fault of the doctors.