A Voice from the Eastern Door
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
Reader Comments(0)