This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On fakes and faking:
There are a few interesting patterns I’ve seen regarding discourse around certain things being “fake,” or that certain people are “faking” or have “faked” something, wherein one finds distinct claims being either accidentally mistaken or deliberately conflated. And while there are definite culture war examples — sometimes in multiple areas — my initial examples are going to be less so.
[1.] “Person X is faking (very real) condition Y” versus “Condition Y is fake”:
A notable fictional example is in the South Park episode “Le Petit Tourette,” wherein Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome to get away with randomly swearing. To quote from the Wikipedia summary:
[2.] “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it are perfectly fine” versus “Condition X is fake; those who claim to have it actually suffer from Condition Y”:
Here, my example is Morgellons. I remember one memorable comment online from a doctor (back when I first encountered this particular internet rabbit-hole), responding to one “Morgellons” sufferer’s claim that doctors ‘refuse to give them a diagnosis,’ that no, doctors have been giving them a diagnosis, the same diagnosis, over and over: delusional parasitosis.
[3.] “The video/book is fake, as in staged” vs. “The video/book is fake, as in nonexistent”:
Here, examples of the first are any “mockumentary” or “found footage” movie — i.e. “The Blair Witch Project” is fake. This is the sort of claim that moon-landing conspiracy theories make. The second example, in comparison, is saying that something is fake like the way “Goncharov” is a fake movie — it doesn’t actually exist, and anyone who claims to have watched it is lying (in the case of “Goncharov,” as part of the game/fun.) Generally, what I see here in terms of ambiguity/equivocation is someone making a claim of the second type which people then “debunk” as if they had made the first type of claim.
Thoughts?
I am convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that psychosomatic disorders are real.
So are the overwhelming majority of doctors.
In the majority of cases, this is not a problem for the patient. In fact, a lot of the time they're happy that the miscellaneous aches and pains that plague them are not indicative of a more serious condition, and can be dispelled with a combination of reassurance/therapy/antidepressants/neuropathic drugs.
This does not always work. Quite often, patients are unhappy/depressed for eminently sensible reasons that are beyond our, or their, ability to fix. The catch-all term for this, at least in the UK, is "Shit Life Syndrome". The prognosis is often terminal.
On the other hand, we have the Munchies, the 'ol sufferers of Munchausen syndrome, or worse by proxy, where some other poor bastard, be it a child or elderly relative unable to speak up for themselves, is subject to their torments.
They certainly are less than happy to be caught, even less happy about being treated for it, and unfortunately, in most cases, can't be committed involuntarily, only duly ignored in the future. Of course, if a case of abuse can be brought against them on behalf of those in their care, all the better.
And there are all kinds of hypochondriacs who aren't happy unless taking at least three medicines a day. On the plus side, they're quite scrupulous about it, which is more than I can say about many people who need them more.
Are there false positives and negatives? Undoubtedly. Someone, somewhere, is going to have a legitimate disease, likely an obscure one, and their concerns dismissed. But make no mistake, such incidents are in the firm minority. Most people who are dismissed by multiple doctors are dismissed because there is little that can be done, or nothing to do in the first place beyond tell them that they don't have what they're convinced they have.
This is one of the more striking things about the various sorts of mystery syndrome people that firmly believe they're being pushed off for no good reason. They don't seem to be able to adequately model the minds of physicians. What do they imagine that physicians get into medicine for? What do they imagine the typical physician would like to do for their patients? Of course, it is true that some physicians will become so severely jaded that they're really not doing a very good job of looking at individual patients as individuals, but this is not my experience with the vast majority of physicians across different disciplines. Even the docs that specifically avoided working directly with patients (pathologists, molecular geneticists, other lab-types) are deeply, personally invested in doing what they can on a day-to-day basis to heal people. When a pathologist bumps into a weird section that isn't consistent with reported clinical indications, the response isn't, "well fuck 'em, I have other things to do", it's grabbing a colleague to figure out what IHC to order, what genetic diseases they haven't considered, and so on. OK, it's not like House on TV, but medical staff really do make a pretty substantial effort to nail differential diagnosis.
So, yeah, if multiple doctors at different institutions are dismissing you as actually biologically healthy, the likelihood really is that you're just a hypochondriac.
Bang on.
I've met jaded and burnt out doctors going through the motions, even dangerously incompetent ones. But they are a small fraction of the ones you'll encounter.
Doctors want to be able to pin a diagnosis on you. We want our patients to recover and get better. It certainly helps with billing insurance if nothing else.
In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, my default presumption in such cases are that there's nothing wrong with the patient, or nothing that can be solved by giving them the diagnosis they desire.
It doesn't help that it's the odd case where someone legitimately fell through the cracks that is overwhelmingly likely to be signal boosted.
"Doctor diagnoses man with dyspepsia as having H. pylori infection, eradication regime succeeds, problem solved" is dog bites man news. Them missing a case of stomach cancer isn't, especially with anecdotes of the Herculean struggle by the poor sap to remedy that scenario.
This is not to dismiss all complaints as illegitimate, India suffers from a serious paucity of awareness about mental illness, both in the lay population and doctors (ahem, my adult diagnosis of ADHD, which should not have required me to have been an adult to receive it, especially since my parents are MDs). But that's for well-recognized, or rather well established but under-recognized diseases. If someone organized a Fibromyalgia awareness campaign here, I'd join in lynching them.
It's possible you had a bad doctor. If all the doctors you've met have been awful, it's the asshole-in-the-room thing again.
I think a reason a perception of lazy and uninterested doctors you have to fight with in order to get (the correct) treatment sometimes persist is because the first point of contact for many are GPs and GPs often are the bottom of the barrel of doctors and the most jaded and working under unreasonable time constraints since they act as gate keepers to the rest of the medical system.
Once you actually meet a specialist its like another world. People are (generally) interested, competent and trying to help.
Competent and sympathetic GPs of course do exist but many (most in my impression honestly) really are quite bad, people who either couldn't hack it elsewhere, incompetent immigrants of dubious credentials and people who've just checked out. If anyone's on the AI chopping block it's these guys.
If thats who you're mostly interacting with then what is your impression going to be?
I resent being called out specifically in this manner /s
Thankfully standardized testing indicates I am above average in my equivalent cohort of GMC registered doctors.
GP, now that's going to vary from place to place. But I know the ones in the UK are severely overworked and the official amount of time allocated per patient can be as low as ten minutes, 15 is generous. Even if they would love to take their time, they simply don't have it, and they are forced to implicitly reallocate from the clear-cut cases to the ones who really need it. I would love to defend them against accusations of being bottom-barrel doctors, since someone needs to do their job, but let's just say that with my MSRA score if I had wanted to be a GP I'd be one already, instead of being strung along with further rounds of psych placements. It's hard work, with additional medicolegal risk from seeing such an undifferentiated patient pool. You have the stress of this seemingly relatively clearcut diagnosis being the one that sinks you, or at least puts you through the GMC wringer. However, GP is a great option for those unwilling to take the bullshit that is UK speciality training. Just 2 years. A great qualification if you want to flee to fairer pastures. More scope for private practise, and you can quickly make a name for yourself, even if it's by being just better than the awful ones.
In India, any doctor post MBBS is a GP. It's not a protected specialization like in the UK. And anyone worth their salt will join the rat race in an endeavor not to stay that way. However they don't fill the same niche as gatekeepers as in the UK, patients will usually book appointments with the specialist they (think) they need, or be summarily referred to one. The first port of call for most is a General Medicine doctor (or a super specialist who still sees such cases), and that only comes after a competitive 4 year MD.
Elsewhere? Can't comment. Maybe @Throwaway05 might have something to add. Or @Pigeon from even further afield.
Being an excellent PCP is possibly the most difficult and cognitively demanding job in medicine. On top of that pay is shit, prestige is shit, so great people don't go into it but great people are needed.
Corporate pressure and increasing health problems means they have less time with patients but more to do than ever before.
It's a mess and I understand why patients feel mistreated but they also have no idea whats going on.
As for the specifics in the U.S. IM or FM can be a PCP after completing a relevant residency, with (some?) states having a process for being a "GP" with more limited scope of practice after completing certain levels of residency.
The U.S. is weird because all docs can technically do anything in medicine (unrestricted practice) but getting permission to do that in a particular facility, malpractice insurance, and getting patient's insurance to cover what you do is all complicated. Certain kinds of ethically challenged people manage.
In the UK, the pay is thankfully not shit. Well, by your standards (and mine) the pay for most doctors is trash, but GPs reach those hallowed plateaus faster than other fuckers slogging through 7 years of training.
I think the Indian system is quite similar to the US. I know of scenarios where there are legal requirements, such as it taking a psychiatrist to prescribe stimulants, but it's a combination of getting no
bitchespatients and the medicolegal concerns you mentioned that prevents anyone from doing just about anything.I have heard some stories about the antics of my colleagues in more rural areas. I can't relay them on a public forum without contacting my lawyer first, even if I'm not involved. It gets that bad.
It's not unreasonable for a PCP to make 180-220 a year. That's a lot of money in comparison to most jobs, but when the surgical sub specialist is making 600-800.....people follow incentives.
Note: We have orders of magnitude more doctors in primary care than the sexy big number specialties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We don't get many Indian doctors here, it's mostly middle eastern ones and some from eastern Europe. It's usually the middle eastern ones that are the problem, with the Persians being a big exception.
The funny thing is that immigrants with specialisations are easily as good as the natives, and often better, while their GP co-ethnics are mindbogglingly incompetent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link