‘Real’ Doctors and Second Opinions

Perhaps the most important ‘rule’ for patients to remember when consulting any

health care professional is that getting a ‘second opinion’ is a logical and beneficial

process. Taking such a step ensures that one has all the information and opinions

necessary to make an informed decision regarding one’s own health care. Quite simply,

patients usually consult with more than one realtor when listing a house, or more than one

financial advisor when starting a retirement plan. Why, then, would they not seek ‘second

opinions’ with their health care?

The ‘second opinion’, however, has one very significant limitation. That is that

the health professional offering the ‘second opinion’ has to be educated and specifically

licensed in the treatment, testing or diagnostic process for which the patient is seeking the

‘second opinion’. While this may sound obvious, the reality is that many health

professionals routinely offer ‘opinions’ on testing or treatment options for which they

have no education, experience or license. This point is especially true in the field of nonpharmaceutical

medicines and treatments. Consider an example to illustrate this point.

Recently, a terminal cancer patient attended my office seeking the intravenous

ascorbate therapy she had seen the news report upon in March, 2006. The therapy,

published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (March 28, 2006), was shown by

the U.S. government’s National Health Institute to put into remission several forms of

terminal cancer which ‘conventional’ treatments were unable to address. She had tried to

get the therapy at the Jewish General in Montreal (which has an on-going study on this

therapy), and when she was unable to, she attended my office. Upon review of her

medical records, she was apprised that my clinic would be able to provide her with the

treatment. She was then advised to discuss the starting of the treatment with all of her

health care providers, so that all professionals were informed and co-operating in her

care.

When following this advice and discussing the matter with her family doctor, she

was told the treatment was ‘quackery’ and that ‘if it worked we would already be doing

it’. The patient attended my office in tears, as she was confused. She thought that the

treatment ‘had no proof’ despite 40 years of published data, a National Health Institute

study and publication in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). She thought

so due to the comments of her family doctor.

Now, why is this story worthy of mention? Well, the lady was asked as to the

details of her conversation with her family doctor. Evidently she asked her doctor if he

had read any of the (40 years worth) of studies, including the March 28, 2006 CMAJ.

Evidently he stated that he had not. Likewise he had never administered the therapy or

monitored patients who had received the therapy.

In medicine, doctors seek ‘evidence based’ therapies. This means that they want

to see ‘proof’ that something works to recommend it use for a patient. The problem arises

that if a health professional doesn’t read the existing evidence, then they should monitor

their opinions about use of a particular test or treatment. Simply being a licensed health

professional (M.D., N.D., chiropractor etc.) doesn’t mean that one is informed on a

particular testing or treatment options. Patients, accordingly, need to get second opinions

and ask their doctors about their specific knowledge of a test or treatment in order to

evaluate if their health professional’s advice is right for them individually.

This point brings us to the unfortunate summary to this space. The doctor in

question advised the patient that ‘real doctors’ did not use this treatment. This rebuttal is

one which is all too familiar in the field of non-pharmaceutical medicine. It appears to be

used as an attempt by those who have no education or license in the field to try and

demean those who do. Taking a certain amount of personal bemusement in such trite

statements, I ask if the medical doctors at the Jewish General (or those at the National

Health Institute) are ‘real doctors’.

Take your health seriously and ask for informed opinions. Best of health to you.

Dr. Stephen F. Jones B.comm, N.D.

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine

Editor – The Health Journal

Clinic Director – The Millennium Health Centre