Several months ago, Atul Gawande wrote an interesting article in the New Yorker on why people seek unnecessary treatment. He questions why patients will willingly undergo unnecessary treatments that are objectively more dangerous than undergoing no treatment at all. He discusses why this is the case and posits, among other ideas, that part of the problem is that people generally don't know what statistics in medicine mean. Having thought about the piece myself, I question whether it is so much that we don’t know as it is
that we want to know about certain things in certain ways. Alan Levinovitz, author of The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat,
remarked about a similar issue involving diets:
In his piece, Gawande notes that a patient from whom he surgically removed
a benign thyroid cancer that was only discovered due to an unnecessary test “thanked
me profusely for relieving her anxiety.”
She was not concerned about her actual physical health condition. If she were, she would have recognized that
the procedure to remove the benign tumor carried with it higher risks of death
and physical harm than leaving the microcarcinoma alone and monitoring it. The need for treatment was not medical. Her understanding of the condition was
conditioned on a belief system about cancer (and medicine) that is mythic. Dr. Gawande was fulfilling a function perhaps
closer to shaman than surgeon. The
problem, if it is a problem, is with modes of understanding and typologies of
knowledge.
It is too easy to blame greed. Certainly greed in medicine exists. So does false hope and unrealistic
expectations. Charlatans take advantage
in medicine as they do in the revival tent (or on the revival screen, as the
case may be).
The idea of medicine in America is, or has become,
salvic. Christ on the Cross is no longer
intercessor or savior or redeemer. Now
it is the busy doctor dispensing antibiotics for viral upper respiratory
infections or the cardiothoracic surgeon putting in a stent or the plastic
surgeon cheating time with a Botox injection who intercedes, saves, or
redeems. The Rosary replaced by the Rx
b.i.d. The actual state of health is
unimportant compared to the reassurance of an explanation, the ritual that
allows us to feel as though everything is okay, that everything is in order,
that we are being taken care of. The
soul has become the body. Our quest for health is, as Levine notes with diet, quasi-religious.
And pain. Pain is
more than nociception. Pain is a modality
for expressing discomfort, physical or otherwise. Complaints of pain alone seems not to
establish physical pathology. However,
we have learned that when something hurts we go to the doctor. Unhappy marriages hurt. Financial distress hurts. Is it any wonder that we somaticize? Seeking understanding and counsel in medicine
is normal behavior for persons acculturated as we are; that is acculturated to
believe every problem is medical and every medical problem has a solution.
One of Foucault’s profound insights in The Clinic is that the patient went from being a person in the pre-clinical era of medicine to a specimen
when medicine became “scientific” or clinical. As a
specimen, the patient became an object of inquiry rather than a person in the
world. The goal of treatment became a
disease-free state rather than well-being.
Thus, questions about the patient’s overall well-being that were not
directly related to the disease state were subverted and minimized. “Treatment” would only be proffered in the
presence of objectively verifiable disease, regardless of the patient’s degree
of actual suffering. Consciously or not,
patients came to understand that if they wanted relief from pain they would
have to characterize it as a disease-state.
Members of all societies suffer, some more than others, but
suffering is a constant. No society is
Edenic. Nevertheless, contemporary
American society seems to predispose its members, at least those members not
living in abject poverty, to a certain anomie.
For whatever reason, traditional American cultural institutions seem unable to
ameliorate this state. Instead, this
cultural disaffection seems often to be medicalized in forms such as low back
pain, arthritis pain, or depression.
Unfortunately, medicine treats the manifestations of anomie as disease
states, with predictably poor results.
Despite the predictably poor results, medicine treats manifestations of anomie with the same
confidence and professional brio with which it treats broken bones. Hence, a perversity of expected outcomes is
created for both doctors and patients. Doctors offer something approximating science while patients seek salvation for existential discomfort out of the firmament of superstition and myth. Unfortunately, never the twain shall meet.
No comments:
Post a Comment