Medical Malpractice

One of the depressing facts of the conventional medical system we're strapped into in the U.S. is that it is not designed to give doctors the freedom to treat their patients in the best, most effective way possible. Here is a case in point.

The doctor had known his patient for years, treating him for diabetes with the usual scripted protocols. He had watched his patient steadily deteriorate, knowing he could help him, yet feeling constrained by the conventional dogma under which he was compelled to labor. Now his patient had presented with diabetic neuropathy. He had no feeling below his ankles, but the disorder had not yet progressed to the point of ulcers and infection. His usual blend of mainstream medications were not helping and continuing on this course would inevitably lead to amputation. The doctor knew he could help his patient, but to do so, he would have to deviate from the conventional and cross the line into alternative medicine.

He proposed an alternative treatment. Disregarded, frowned on, and ridiculed in the U.S., it is mandatory in Germany, where it is malpractice not to provide it for patients with neuropathy. Writing down two substances, readily available and effective in treating the disorder, he handed the note to his patient, fully expecting to see him greatly improved within the next two weeks.

And then the storm broke loose. The patient went home and asked his daughter to get the over the counter supplements for him. Instead, she took the note and, filled with indignation, stormed over to the clinic administrator with a vehement complaint. And the doctor found himself defending himself in a professional review action.

The issue here was not the efficacy of the supplements. That had nothing to do with it. The objective of medicine, to make sick people well, was lost. The review committee didn't care whether the treatment worked or not. They were worried that the deviation from the mainstream "standards of care" as published had been breached and the clinic could be exposed to liability. They were right, of course. We're living in a sue happy society. The doctor was able to keep his job only by promising to never again offer an "unapproved" therapy. He was officially counseled to never discuss alternative treatments with his patients.

This is the problem every patient of a conventional doctor is faced with. Even if the doctor knows of an effective, and better, alternative treatment for a condition, giving out that information could result in reprimand, or worse. So it all comes down to trust. And under the circumstances, it's going to take a whole lot to gain that kind of trust from any doctor. A patient could not even praise the doctor. Telling a friend, or another doctor, about a successful alternative treatment received, could get back to haunt the well meaning provider. It only takes a single complaint to land the doctor into trouble.

The easiest way to get alternative treatment information from your mainstream provider is to do your homework first, then ask for an opinion. This way you can receive an honest, informed answer. Another way is to ask, if your provider had the problem, what treatment option would be chosen? That lets the mainstream physician off the hook, and many will then give an honest and sincere accounting of the various options available. If they know. There are, of course, many mainstream physicians who are totally close minded, and dogmatically opposed to any alternative therapies. If you have such a doctor, find another.