On levels of evidence

A patient asked me the other day if I thought she was a crazy person for telling me she was going to disregard my advice on managing her high cholesterol and high blood pressure and go have a chat to her naturopath instead. I said no, that doesn’t offend me at all. Actually, it has nothing to do with me. I had explained to her the risks of untreated hypertension and hyperlipidemia and about how medications can help those, etc. etc. I had disclosed sufficient information for her to make an informed decision on her own health. She has a right to refuse treatment just as I had a duty to provide that information to her as her treating doctor. Medico-legally, I was in a defensible/safe area. Aside from that, though, did I think she was crazy for refusing well-advised medical opinion? Well, no. And this is what I told her.

You know, I believe in God. I believe in the Judeo-Christian version of God and in creationism. I’m comfortable in believing these stories that if you applied the scientific level of “proof” are actually quite laughable. So how do I get around holding such preposterous beliefs and still having some sort of pride in calling myself both a Christian and a scientist? I don’t apply the same level of proof or set of rules to all my beliefs. And yet, why do I believe the Christian and not the Islamic or Mosaic or Taoist or any other version of life philosophy? A whole heap of reasons! Probably because the country I grew up in had 99% of its population listed as catholic. Probably because my family is Christian. Probably because Christianity was all around me and the stories were told to me since I was very young. I was told from very early on also that the people who lived in my house were my siblings, my mum, etc. and I believed it. Even now I do not see the need to demand DNA-evidence to “prove” the story that these people are related to me. Similarly, I was told stories about God and Jesus and prophets, etc., and I am happy still to believe them. But what has all this got to do with my initial story about the lady who wanted to see the naturopath?

I’ve been trained in Western Medicine. I have a system in my mind with which I approach illness and human functioning. Briefly, I studied anatomy and physiology and pathophysiology so I believe 1) The body has these organ systems working together to make the body function in the environment, 2) The body is trying to stay “alive” and function properly as it’s default, 3) When the body is failing at functioning, it is because of an illness, 5) Illness is brought about by microscopic processes, be it errors in naturally-occurring processes or external microscopic organisms bringing about this change. That’s it. That’s essentially the Western Medicine model of disease. When we approach illness, we are trying to restore the body’s function to its default. We give medications or we perform surgery to try to restore this balance somehow. We may also advise modifications in diet, physical activities, exposure to the external environment, etc. The “treatments” we recommend are based on scientific evidence that they have some effect on illness.

I am comfortable with the model of medicine I have been trained in. I am comfortable with the level of scientific evidence it demands. Because I’m both comfortable in this system and believe in the scientific method and the stringency demanded of the “treatments” in Western Medicine, I find it hard to accept other models of medicine. Is that a bad thing? That is akin to asking ‘Is it bad that I’m a Christian and not a Jew?’ No; it isn’t a bad thing. It’s what I’m comfortable with, what I know and understand, and the alternative is unknown to me. Alternative models of medicine are to me as foreign as Zoroastrianism. Because these things are largely unknown to me, I lack knowledge and exposure to them, and –importantly– I lack belief in them, it’s better that I stick to the kind of medicine and the kind of religion I know and believe.

Now, back to the point of scientific evidence. The model of medicine I practice in, Western Medicine, what I simply call medicine, has a few postulates that to me are important. For example, it demands that the positive effect of treatments be reproducible, that side-effects are minimal and predictable, that treatment is better than no treatment (and by a significant margin), and that the treatment has been tested many times over for safety. The treatments supported by other models of medicine may lack some of these stringent criteria in favour for other priorities (e.g. that it is derived from ‘natural’ products, etc.). As I said, to me (and for the majority of my patients), the level of scientific evidence that Western Medicine demands is all-important. But if others are happy with an alternative model of medicine and alternative levels of evidence that they demand of their treatment, then I can only respect that in the same way I see it as my duty to respect other people’s religious, cultural, and other beliefs.

For example, I have patients who tell me, against widely-accepted scientific evidence, that they don’t believe that smoking is bad because their relative smoked until the age of 100 and died of causes unrelated to smoking. This person requires a study of only one person who is significant to them to make their conclusions. Or they may tell me that their friend down the road told them that sunscreen causes skin cancer, and that is why they refuse to wear it. This person, again, requires only anecdotal “evidence”. Or they may tell me that blood-pressure-lowering or cholesterol-lowering drugs cause more harm than good, but the arsenic-containing but “natural” compound sold by their naturopath is the best thing for it. This person believes that a product being “natural” means it’s automatically safer and more beneficial than one that has been rigorously scientifically tested. What can I say to these people? Well, usually nothing that will change their minds if they don’t believe in the model of medicine I have been instructed in. But what I usually do is explain to them in Western Medicine and scientific terms why I believe the treatment Western Medicine suggests is appropriate, what the risks are of not treating it this way, and then ask them what else they wish to know about this particular treatment. After that, it’s up to the individual patient to make their own choices. And no, I don’t think of them as crazy for ignoring my advice :)

On making "the unhappy" happy - Part 2/2

Of the war veterans I meet with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, do you know what they value most in their lives? Not finding a “cure” for PTSD and depression, but just appreciating and being able to be with the people in their lives. They accept very courageously – not cowardly – the goals of treatment of these disorders: minimizing symptoms, moving forward from the last exacerbation, and decreasing the number of further exacerbations. They don’t seek a cure, though of course if it were feasible, they’d pay any price to have it. But why fight futile battles? So, I say again that they very courageously choose to expend their energies on the things that matter instead: love, productivity, enjoyment. But before you assume that I am making a claim such as “there is no cure for depression”, let me clarify that that is not the broad statement that I am making.

I used to think, naively, that once I fell in love, once someone loved me and I had someone to share my life with, I’d be happy. I wondered why the people I met who had the things that I thought would bring me happiness weren’t happy. How could they be depressed when they had a partner, children, a job they didn’t hate, generally good physical health, etc.? Why hadn’t the love they had in their loves not cured their depression? Because lack of love didn’t bring about the depression, nothing that was correctable did. Yes, they had love; but completely unrelatedly they also had a mental disorder. Finally I realized why people give flowers to sick relatives in hospital: the flower isn’t meant to “cure” the illness, just make it more tolerable by giving you that warm feeling inside that you’re not alone and reminding you that people care about you.

In persons who have become depressed or suffering PTSD as a result of some psychological social trauma, there is nothing in this world that can erase the memories and/or the cognitive processes that get programmed into your brain. Remarkably, though, a human being can go about their lives being perfectly functional and socially involved despite these demons we carry around in our head. When you have a chronic depression or PTSD of this kind, the best you can wish for is not being “cured”, but having people around you who understand you and stick with you on the journey. Not even “love” can erase the inner hell we experience with these mental disorders, but love can motivate the people around us to give us the all vital support and understanding. Conversely, if you find yourself in a relationship with a person who has depression or PTSD or a similar complaint, you will only hurt yourself by believing that your role is to bring about “cure”; it’s not. Your role is no different to that of anyone else who ever loved: to love, to give (including understanding), to receive, and to share life together.

On making "the unhappy" happy - Part 1/2

One thing that took me a while to understand when I was younger is that “love”, or having a romantic relationship, doesn’t cure everything. In fairy tales, people fall in love and love rids you of physical “ugliness”, of having an evil heart, of disease and death, of financial poverty, of social oppression, of emotional and physical abuse, of low self-esteem, of disability, and of every negative thing that can happen to a human being. And don’t get me wrong, I like those stories as much as anyone else, and I'm also aware they are often metaphors for what love can actually achieve. Essentially love, being in love, being loved, loving, discovering love, etc. has the effect of giving human beings courage to believe in their own strength and to take risks. The greatest motivator for positive change and the strength to bring about that change is love. Love can conquer all…

The second most difficult thing for a human being to do is to bring about change in this world. The single most difficult thing in this life for us to do is to bring about change in ourselves. Love is supposed to make all things possible, right? That’s what the fairy tales tell us. That is what we have learnt personally from life. I still believe this is true. But there is one scenario unique to human beings I find particularly interesting when considering all that love can do.

Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) result in unique states of mind where the “enemy” and the “villain” that we fight everyday lives exclusively within our hearts and minds. He may have been created by exposure to psychologically trauma or neurobiochemical imbalances or social oppression and abuse, or any of a myriad of negative human experiences. Yet the outcome of these situations are so common that someone has been able to make lists of the cognitive effects that result. They are described commonly in books and medical and scientific literature and classified into categories that receive the names of “mood disorders”. Depression, anxiety, and PTSD are very common diagnoses given to the people who suffer the effects of having these internal enemies to fight; the low mood, the lack of self-esteem, the sense of worthlessness, the compulsion to self-harm, the feelings of inability to better one’s own situation, and the inability to envision a future different to the inner world they seem trapped in.

I have seen many patients with PTSD, mainly war veterans, but all survivors of some sort of abuse or extremes of human experience. These people have lived through horrible things – and survived! If anybody can be called strong and honorable, it is them. Yet, they often are the first to believe they don’t deserve to be alive or to have good things in life. Bullets kill many soldiers in combat; depression and PTSD kills way too many survivors. People don’t choose to suffer depression, anxiety, or PTSD, the same way none of us choose to voluntarily suffer. And the worst part is that with these psychiatric complaints, you also can’t choose to “just snap out of it”. The goals of treatment in these disorders are not aimed at cure, but at managing symptoms, learning new ways to process information to help stop triggering these inner beasts, and minimizing the number of exacerbations. Of course, there are many ways we go about doing this (medication, psychotherapy, self-directed education, meditation, etc.), but generally there’s no way to completely cure these problems.

But wait, what about love? Doesn’t love “conquer ALL? Doesn’t love give you strength, courage, motivation, hope, etc. to achieve anything in life – even to change the world? The thing with depression, PTSD, and other psychiatric complaints is that the thing to conquer lies within. But love should be able to help you achieve even that, right? Isn’t love also able to change a human being? I used to believe just that.

On alternative medicine

The most “open-minded” thing I’ve done this year is to try this so-called natural medicine thing from a consumer point of view. Whenever I tell this story people almost gasp in disbelief: Yes, me, an Australian-trained doctor trying this thing we have been taught since medical school is mostly witchcraft. And yes, I admit, that is (or at least was) my own view on this. The common medical literature tells us “natural medicine” is not scientifically-evaluated, poorly understood because for the most part it’s not in line with the common biopsychosocial model of medicine, and that it’s potentially very dangerous.

Sometimes patients ask me what my views on natural medicine are, and essentially they mean to ask my medical opinion on whether certain natural medicine treatments will help their condition or not. My response is almost always the same: “If you believe it’ll work, it probably will. If you don’t, it won’t”. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m pretty close to certain that it is true when we are talking about homeopathy. My response is also an acknowledgement to the God-blessed and irrefutable placebo effect. And that is about the extent of my knowledge on non-Western (or alternative) Medicine.

My experience with alternative medicine until a few weeks ago did not leave me with the best of impressions, and they were mostly experiences I had had through my patients. However, before starting to share some of these experiences, I would like to say that I don’t intend to vilify or defame something which I have just admitted to understanding so little, in telling these few stories.

The most recent gimmick I fear for my patients sake are the “full-body scans” that promote themselves as being ‘scientifically-proven’ for the diagnosis of a multitude of vague complaints. They spit out beautiful 3D images and buzz words like “inflammation” or “congestion” and the name of a body organ. Patients pay hundreds of their dollars for the beautiful colour printout they get after having their temperature, blood pressure, pulse, and maybe even respiratory rate measured. But the point is they get what they want because some manufacturer has figured out how to give the patient what he wants (to be taken seriously, to feel cared for, education about his condition, etc.) in exchange for what he wants (money). Oh and how it breaks my heart to have my patient come back to tell me he has stopped taking all his heart medication because the printout said nothing about anything being wrong with his heart only about his spleen being ‘congested’. Or sometimes they’ll come back with a list of obscure tests the naturopath or someone has asked he have checked though you think they are not clinically indicated. So you explain to the patient that those tests may be performed privately, with the cost to the patient, and suddenly they think you are the devil because you are the one who told them about the cost even though it’s not a price you’re setting or something you even think they need… There are many frustrating stories out there from clinicians whose patients have sought the services of an alternative medicine practitioner and some have happy endings and some drastically worse, but what I really wanted to share this week was about my personal experience.

Now, a few weeks ago I allowed my mother to talk me into trialling some “alternative medicine” through a Chinese medicine practitioner one of her friends had recommended. This is the common referral method in this field; word of mouth. So I went along to see this gentleman about a vague diagnosis of “depression” which mum had noted I had increasingly being struggling with (since a recent change in my life circumstances, so probably not even real clinical depression but a temporary low mood). But, hey, I thought I had little to lose so I went. The nice Chinese man with only basic English began by taking a routine medical history and a brief clinical examination (checking some aspect of my pulse and looking at my tongue). He asked about medication I was taking, and after looking at my tongue told me I had a problem with indigestion and ‘loose stools’. He also said I don’t like change and that is why I had “depression”, it was so easy, he said, to see that in me (I call that being human, but whatever).  And he said he could help me if I followed him. Then he took me to another room for acupuncture.

As I lay down on the bed, knowing how “well-educated” people consider me to be, I felt I truly had no idea what was going on and what was going to happen or the mechanism by which it was meant to help my very vague collection of symptoms (including the ‘loose stools’ or ‘indigestion’ which I had not noticed or even bothered me before, and the reactive low mood in response to some changes in my life). I remembered what I told my patients, and I decided to trust the guy about to stick needles in me. I wondered if he could sense my ambivalence and distrust, but truth is it doesn’t take any kind of professional to recognise that in another human being. I wondered just why I was going along with this: To “cure” myself of ailments I probably didn’t even have? To please my mother? To see what all this ”quackery” was about? I think it was a combination of all the above, but despite my reasons, I knew there was nothing imaginary about the needles about to pierce my skin.

He came back in the little cubicle with (to my relief) sterilely-packed acupuncture needles and ethanol wipes. He inserted 11 needles in me, on both sides of my body: 2 near the fibular head, one posterior to the medial malleolus, one on the palmar aspect of my wrist, one just behind each mastoid process, and a final one on the very top of my head into my scalp. What I’ve always being told about acupuncture is that they use tiny tiny needles; what I didn’t realise until the day of my first session was that these tiny needles still hurt! After I had the needles inserted, I was left in the cubicle for 30 minutes and a soft harp music was played over the speakers.

I didn’t know what I was supposed to think about for those 30 minutes, so I started thinking all sorts of things. I couldn’t move because every time I moved, sharp stabbing pains would shoot through the spots where the needles were in me. First I thought I was meant to focus on the music and just relax, however I was in the middle of an Asian-dense shopping centre and people were talking and shouting and that kept distracting me. Then I thought I might focus at the point tenderness the needles were causing me, but that got old pretty quick too. So I started to try to decipher how the whole acupuncture thing works. The guy who put the needles in me hadn’t explained it to me, but actually I remembered that one session in medical school where we briefly discussed about alternative medicine. It was something about Chi channels, which don’t correlate to lymphatic or nervous or vascular channels and have possibly no anatomically corresponding structures to account for them. Then something about the balance of the Ying and Yang, which are some metaphysical constructs related to health and life in general… Oh Gosh, I was half making it up and I was still no closer to understanding what I was at that moment meant to be going through.

Finally the 30 minutes were over and the Chinese medicine practitioner told me to get up and follow him. He asked how I felt. Um, I felt like I had just had being laying down for 30 minutes listening to relaxing music while having needles pierced in my skin. What was I meant to feel? Spiritual enlightment? Physical invigoration? Relaxed? I felt relieved, honestly, because my neck was sore and I needed to change my posture. So that’s what I felt, relief; but I didn’t think that that was what the nice Chinese man wanted to hear so I said I felt “better”. I remembered how I sometimes treat patients for things they don’t fully understand (though I try to explain) like hypertension. I tell them the medication won’t make them “feel” any different, let alone any better, it’s not meant to. They may not feel sick, but untreated high blood pressure increases you risk of things no-one wants to have like heart attacks and strokes. So they take the medicines I give them though they don’t notice any change, except maybe some side-effects, and they trust the 2 minute explanation I have given them as to why it’s good for them. I felt a bit like that with my Chinese medicine practitioner, though he asks me how I feel. I like this guy, he’s a nice man, he is trying to achieve something with me here, so though I don’t know what the right answer is, I don’t want to call either him or myself a failure... Better, I must feel better.

He charges me more than I would charge a patient for a consultation of equal duration and he picks out some pill boxes from his shop, all in Asian writing I can’t understand. He says take 40 of these tablets twice a day. What?! No, no, it’s fine, he says. He tells me he can “guarantee” they aren’t going to cause any side-effects; that they are free of these evil “chemicals” the medicines I prescribe have. Of course, they are “all-natural”. I ask what they are. They are “natural remedies” with “natural” ingredients to treat my loose stools and indigestion. Oh yeah, those things that weren’t even causing me any discomfort. He books me in for a further 4 acupuncture sessions which will make me feel even “better”. My heart sinks because my mother has heard this whole exchange and she’s ecstatic!

I went along to the other 4 sessions, my mother kindly driving me in and even offering to pay my fees. My mood is still a bit low and my self-esteem a bit shattered from the personal difficulties I had faced a few weeks earlier, so I don’t have the courage to say no. I even take the 80+ tablets twice a day for a few days until I get constipated… At my second acupuncture session he asks whether I have stopped taking my other “non-natural” medicines yet. I didn’t know I had to, but no, I haven’t. I understand the potential side-effects from stopping my medication abruptly. A cold chill goes through me thinking that this is exactly what my patients face, and no wonder they do stop their medications and suffer the consequences. It seems so cruel to me. He asks if I feel better. Well, time is helping heal my emotional wounds that had being inflicted some weeks ago, and I’m pretty sure that would have happened despite the “natural remedies” and acupuncture; but yes, nice man, I am better. Is the “indigestion” better? Am I free of the ‘loose stools’ yet? Yes, nice man, I am free of those things I didn’t even know were problems... Eventually, I’ve spent so much money, I have got so much “better” (judging by what I am telling the nice man), and my self-esteem and normal affect have returned that I just can’t continue this whole thing.

And am I better because of the intricate placebo I have just trialled? Or am I better because I never was ill? I don’t know, but I have at the least realised the effect of faith has on healing. When my patients seek alternative medicine methods, they are usually at their most vulnerable and desperate to be well again. I would be better to see them more frequently, to engage them, to ask (maybe demand?) improvement from them. Maybe if I keep asking them if they are better, maybe if I keep seeing them once or twice a week, maybe if I make them believe the challenge is not just his but his and mine, maybe if I keep asking him to take his medication time and time again, maybe if I pay him personal human to human attention, he will get better. And I think that is the lesson in this for me: that is the kind of practitioner we need to become a bit closer to being, rather than leaving all these tasks to the alternative medicine practitioner, who may or may not also give the best medical advice.

On money and healthcare: Rights & Priorities - Part 3/3

As a doctor you often see people in a very vulnerable state of health walk into your room. Your job is to provide some sort of health care to that person. It is a paid job just like anyone else’s job for which they trained and invested time, effort, and money. Why any of us decided to become doctors and not hairdressers, teachers, politicians, carpenters, etc., is different for everyone and that is not the point. The point is we are workers same as anyone else doing any job. You do the job for a certain amount of hours, you get paid for doing that job, and then the money is yours to do as you wish. That’s the essence of working in a capitalist, democratic country like Australia and the U.S.A. regardless of what your job actually entails, right?

The doctor is a bit like a hairdresser or an accountant or a lawyer or a politician in that he doesn’t physically sell you a product, but rather a service. A patient walks in, you carry out an assessment, work out what he needs, and advice or give that treatment required. Patients don’t leave the room with a new bag filled with products they’ve purchased, but the same thing happens once you leave your hairdresser or accountant – and yet you are aware you need to pay for the service provided to you. And yet you could say that the service provided to you is at least a little more essential than a haircut or advice about things other than your health. One of these things could potentially be the difference between life and death. I have never heard of anyone who risked death by having long or unkempt hair…

So here is the dilemma I wanted to get to: health, or the access to health care is an essential human right; it is a right every human being regardless of who they are or what they possess deserves for the simple act of having being born human. In countries where there is widespread poverty and having no money really means having no money (i.e. none to spare on food or clothing or housing, and not just meaning poor as in having no money for a tv, a car, a haircut, a holiday, or entertainment, etc.), having a right to free access to health care is one of the great achievements of humanity.

So why am I singling out ‘poor’ countries as separate to developed countries like Australia? Because in developed countries like Australia, we believe that if we can’t afford a holiday or a car or costly entertainment that we are poor. And we don’t want to miss out on these things! To a person in a wealthy country like this, we believe that these things are our rights too - and God forbid that we miss out on these things to pay for what we now consider non-essentials, such as our health care. And that is the cause of the dilemma in wealthy countries: we have for the most part changed our priorities as to what is considered essential and non-essential. Yet we all have a sense of what our human rights are. I will tell you that in Australia we see time and time again people who hesitate and complain about having to pay an out-of-pocket fee to have their health tended to, but will without hesitation hand over large amounts of money for haircuts, for manicures, for holidays, for fancy cars, for video games, movies, etc. And yet, only one of these things could potentially be the difference between life and death…

I don’t know what the right answer is. And I don’t know what the best system of health care is. Surely everyone deserves the right to access health care regardless of what they have or who they are or what they do with their lives. Yet, surely, we have also come to some concerning conclusions when tending to our health is considered less of a priority than funding our non-essential commodities. Personally, I have only ever considered the doctor’s role as equivalent to the mechanic’s, to fix the machine so the machine can go where it chooses and do what it chooses. Doing our job doesn’t make us special people, we just do a special task. But it is a job same as being a mechanic is a job - and in this society, a job implies compensation. Doctors eat too and pharmaceutical companies are not charities, so the reality of it is that health care has become a business. It’s not ideal, but it is the reality.

On money and healthcare: Rights & Systems - Part 1/3

Rights

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”  (Article 25, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. Of course, to the majority of the world’s population, complete attainment of our human rights and of health are only ideals and not reality. Nevertheless, they are ideals worthy of our consideration.

Ideals

In an ideal world every time someone fell into an unhealthy situation (physically, mentally, or socially), he should be able to access medical health care, mental health care, or social care and have his “health” restored. He should be able to access these things regardless of the amount of money he has, his sex or age, his political or religious affiliation, his ethnicity or language, his sexual identity or practice, his birthplace or site of residence, his employment status, etc. Basically, his right to health care is universal and his human right. That’s the ideal; reality is very different for a lot of reasons.

Reality

Every country has different health care systems, which impact on the way patients access health care. Some countries will have a health care system that is exclusively government-funded and all you may need to access it is proof of citizenship to that country. Usually that means that there is no cost to the patient for an “encounter” (i.e. every time you access health care) as funds are usually derived from a portion of pooled taxes payed by that country’s citizens. Other countries may have a system where accessing health care requires payment to a private health care facility or a private company that coordinates provision of health care (e.g. supplying and paying for the medical staff’s wages, the medical equipment, the facility fees, etc.). A lot of developed countries, Australia included, operate both of these public and private health systems concurrently where the public system is the default for all citizens unable to afford private health care. The private system exists and thrives because it promises certain perks and advantages like your choice of health care provider, faster access to elective surgery, more ready access to specialist medical reviews and allied health services, and often newer premises, medical equipment, and technologies. And yet other countries have a third system, like a lot in South and Central America, a “worker’s” health care system that provides health care services exclusively to that country’s citizens whose employers pay for access to this service. The worker’s health system is closer (or equivalent) to the private health care system than to the public system. I don’t intend to argue which system is better or which worse or which country does it best, but it’s interesting to consider what’s out there.

Australia

Australia has a dual system of public and private healthcare, the public system funded from federal money and managed (for the most part) at a state level. Medicare can be considered a pool of federal monies reserved for funding certain medical services (including surgical fees and the payment for medical staff), medicines, medical aids, etc. All citizens have access to those Medicare funds provided certain criteria are met, but generally it is a default system for everyone.

An often misunderstood peculiarity of the Australian government’s Medicare system has to do with the way a doctor bills his or her patients. The Australian government decides which medical services are worthy of a Medicare rebate, the amount of money allocated to it, and the conditions under which a service qualifies for a rebate. For example, anybody may approach a general practitioner for medical care and Medicare will provide a certain benefit to the patient to pay for that consultation. The patient may also approach a specialist doctor and pay for the full cost of seeing him in his private clinic; or he may present to his GP first and obtain a written referral to the same specialist and then become eligible for a rebate from Medicare to help pay for his medical specialist appointment. (A patient not wishing to access the private medical system at all for any reason may also be referred to a specialist in one of the state’s hospitals where it is available and obtain medical specialist review free of charge.) Importantly, the Australian government decides which medical services qualify for a Medicare rebate and how much money it allocates to each service – however, how much money Medicare allocates to a service does not always reflect how much money a service actually costs to provide. Medicare in fact operates as a rebate, a subsidy to the total cost of health care, not (at least not always) as the absolute cost to cover the service. Think of it as a discount voucher, not as a voucher for a “free” service.

On prescribing choice... and the hypocrite's spiel

There are many people who will tell you that pharmaceutical companies are the devil. I say the devil is the devil, but I also say the pharmaceutical companies are no angels. Let me first disclose something to you: I eat the lunches brought in by the pharmaceutical sales representatives (almost everyday at my work!), I give my patient’s their drug samples, I enjoy their “educational” dinners at expensive restaurants, I am grateful at their supply of products ‘directly related to my clinical practice’, and I miss the days of the free drug-stamped stationery and random gifts. I do not claim to be immune to their marketing tactics simply because I am aware of them; both they and I know that I am human and the tactics exist because they do work. There are those who directly embrace the drug companies with the attitude of ‘hey, if they want to give money away, they may as well give it to me and I will do what they want me to do’. And there are those that completely shun them, who demonize them, who accuse them of being a… a business. Aren’t we all in business? Those who claim they aren’t, aren't in business very long.

Just this past week I recognized a tactic by the sales reps I hadn’t noticed before: bullying. Now, what I mean to say is not that they wanted to humiliate or hurt me, but they sure as hell wanted to make me feel guilt. Now if I remember correctly from my industrial psychology and marketing readings, creating negative emotions in targets is one of the least effective methods to inspire change of behaviour (in this case, prescribing more of the drug they’re promoting); however, least effective doesn’t mean ineffective. The rep was telling me of some new medication; was I using it, she wanted to know? I said no, I studied a little pharmacology too and I felt more comfortable with another medication. She was horrified! Did I not know that it was the most popularly prescribed medication in its class, prescribed by the greater majority of my peers?! My mind was thinking ‘yes, and?’, but I said, ‘Oh, ok. I’ll keep that in mind. Anyways, thanks for the lunch.’ I went away thinking, wow, really, everyone but me uses it, was she implying that I am doing the wrong thing by prescribing something other than “the most popular”? Is it the most popular because it’s the most effective, because it the newest (and newest we are told is better), because they are better doctors than me and if I want to be good then I must be like them. As I walked towards my consulting room from the lunch room where I had the food brought in by the friendly drug rep, I realised it had worked. I was here second-guessing my clinical management not based on clinical data or evidence, but based on simple human emotion: everyone likes to be liked and to be like the rest. I then laughed at myself.

A few weeks ago another drug sales rep was speaking of a medication for erectile dysfunction. Of course it was about the drug, but they alway tells everyone “it’s about the patient”, thinking of what’s best for them. There’s no news or controversy in saying this; no matter what industry you work in, at the end of the day everyone must eat (and you need money to buy food, right?). Every drug rep walks in to that lunch room and comes with 1) our daily bread (or gourmet lunch), and 2) the “educational material” to impart to us that just so happens to show that the drug their company sells is better for our patients for some or another important reason. But this drug rep wanted not to tell me about why their erectile dysfunction drug was better than the other two, but wanted to know what I based my choice on. I’ll tell you what I answered but first I just want to consider another point on prescribing choice.

Now, you could have five different drug reps talk to you about five different drugs from the same class, both targeting the same “disease” (I’ll explain later why a disease is worthy of my quotation marks here), and they can all show you with ‘real clinical evidence’ and ‘scientific studies’ that their company’s drug is the best. The first rep will say their antihypertensive is the best because it, say, doesn’t have this bad side effect. The second one says theirs is better because it reduces blood pressure quicker than the others. The third one says theirs is better because the effects on reducing blood pressure last longer. The fourth one says it their drug tastes better and is in a smaller pill and that this is very important to patient compliance, therefore in fact being the best drug because patients will actually take it. The fifth one will say theirs is the newest and is so many times better than a placebo. Who wants to be associated with the old and outdated, right? Ah, the stories…

What I answered my friendly drug rep is actually not anything new to them. Why do I prescribe a certain erectile dysfunction drug versus another? Honestly, I confessed, my choice was based on whatever sample pack was in stock in our drug samples cupboard. They know this, that’s why they like to stock our cupboard, not because they like to give away “free samples”, but because it works at securing consumers. I have to clarify a little, though, I use this rather non-clinical method to guide my prescription choice only in certain conditions that in my experience the medications are only slight variations on each other with similar clinical effects, for example as in erectile dysfunction. The second reason to why I do this is because these medications are very expensive and I want my patient to try it first before he goes and spends his hard-earned money on something that may or may not be right for him. Most doctors do this, too. You give the patient the sample pack and a script to purchase the medication if they are satisfied with the effect or tolerant of its side-effects. In cases like this, I prescribe what is in the drug cupboard because I know the brand name will make little difference to the clinical effect I am trying to achieve in a patient. For some reason my honesty seemed to surprise the rep and I think it is because there must be some secret pact that we, both the pharmaceutical companies and doctors, must deny that our interactions are in fact business transactions and we should pretend they are purely “educational” and clinical.

As a medical student I did a placement at a clinic that strictly forbade pharmaceutical reps from visiting to promote their products (or should I say, educate us). It was a clinic were most of the clinicians also held academic posts at the university and they were thoroughly involved in evidence-based medicine. I remember one doctor specifically telling me about how he always prescribed the generic version of a particular drug because it was the cheapest and therefore it meant less money spent on government subsidies paid to the drug companies, and subsequently more money left in the health budget for other essential matters. It made sense to me.  Some years later I worked at another clinic where another very noble and more senior doctor advised me that I should prescribed the brand-specific version of a medication for depression that was now off patent. The reasoning was that the company that made this brand of antidepressant was highly involved in drug research and development and also at producing patient education and support materials, but they obviously can’t afford to do that unless they are making money also. It made sense. Yes, besides I also knew that once you allow for the generic version of a medication to be dispensed by the pharmacist, he incidentally happens to supply the patient by the generic version of a medication which is made by his pharmacy chain. Oh, everybody is a businessman. So my choice is then, who do I feed? The pharmaceutical company making the brand-label stuff or the pharmacy chain making the exact same but generic-labelled stuff (which in most cases cost no different to the brand-label medication). Ah, such decisions… Oh yeah, that’s right, this was mean to be about the patient!

Another thing that the pharmaceutical companies are accused of is not only of making healthcare a business (which I don’t believe they are solely responsible for), but of also creating disease. What do I mean ‘creating’? This is mostly in reference to the medicalization, the labelling, of certain human existential states as disease. Some years ago I read a story about how bad it apparently is that we have made things like pregnancy and ageing disease-states. In a similar vein, drug companies have been accused of doing either a good or bad thing, depending on your point of view. One could say that thanks to the educational and public awareness campaigns directed by our blessed pharmaceutical industry, so many people can be diagnosed and directed towards the treatment of many ails such as depression, anxiety, mood swings, hyperactivity, etc. etc. Another group of people report that the drug companies directed these campaigns as a diversion to their real campaign: increase uptake of certain medications (mostly psychotropic medications). They convinced people that their sadness, that their agitation and worry, that their child’s childish behaviour, are abnormal and required treatment – by using the drug that their company so happened to manufacture. Oh, so many coincidences…

And what have I achieved in telling you of these few tales? That I am a hypocrite? Maybe. But hopefully I have also reminded us all that we live in a capitalist society and that denying that there is a devil at our table won’t make that devil any more of a saint. Worse than being the devil’s pawn is not knowing that you are. As doctors, as human beings entrusted with the care of others weakened by disease, we must ensure that that truly is the worst thing: that we sell our own souls, and not that we trade in those of our patients for a piece of the devil’s share.