Should we leave ill alone?

This piece was inspired by an incident in the film ‘The Motorcycle Diaries’, based on the diaries of Ernesto (Che) Guevara and Alberto Granada, which they wrote while on a motorbike tour of South America. The year was 1952. Guevara was in his final year as a medical student, and Grenada was a qualified biochemist.

The two travellers stopped at a farmhouse to beg shelter and food. They usually spun folk a tale about being doctors on a research trip, and that got them the free bed and food and whatever else they sought. But sometimes, as on this occasion, their host would request a medical consultation.

The pair examined a lump on the man’s neck. Guevara instantly diagnosed a tumor, but Grenada argued that it might be benign. Guevara was insistent. Later they had an argument about the situation. Guevara took the position that it was important to diagnose a tumor as soon as possible so that the man might get proper medical intervention. Granada said that the straight out diagnosis had been too brutal; “the man had shit himself,” he said. They should have lied and reassured him.

I was left wondering who had been right, Ernesto Guevara or Alberto Grenada.

On the one hand, I am sure that medical intervention does prolong life, and even enable people to survive illnesses like cancer in some cases. But at what cost?

I had a relative who, at the age of about 30, had a mastectomy. The cancer was completely gone, but it took her years to come to terms with living with the threat of its return — if she ever did. She went through hell. Years of hell.

Even those of us who have not actually been diagnosed with anything are bombarded with statistics telling us that if we are such and such an age, if we are over-weight or under-weight, if we eat a lot of fat/sugar, drink alcohol, get too much sun etc etc then we are at enhanced risk of developing one or other deadly disease. We are constantly being told that we should be getting regular tests for this and that, and doing all sorts of self-examination to catch this or that while it is still treatable…………………

This is all unpleasant in the extreme, and very, very stressful. Is there anyone who does not, when they discover some ‘lump’ somewhere on their body, instantly break out into a sweat nowadays? — and then it turns out to have been nothing at all and just disappears?

When I think of that relative of mine that survived cancer, I feel that her situation must have been like being on death row. She was living with a death sentence hanging over her. Every 6 months, or whatever it was, she went for another set of tests and then waited for the results, waited to see if she had another stay of execution.

Even those of us who are apparently healthy are, in some measure, living under the same conditions.

In other words, all this obsession with diseases and catching them early etc has, in effect, condemned us all to a life on death row. It has SERIOUSLY degraded the quality of life.

In fact, considering how detrimental an effect stress has on a person’s health, one can only wonder if all this fuss does not, in fact, do as much harm as good. Stress makes the immune system less effective, and so opens the way to all sorts of other illnesses. We seem, for example, to be having epidemics of allergies these days, and one can only wonder if that is the health price we are paying for the attempts to protect ourselves from the likes of cancer.

I feel that we have definitely developed a very unhealthy attitude to our health. In the end, I come down in favour of Alberto Grenada: lie to the man and let him live out his life in relative peace and hope that when the end comes, it comes quickly.

   The answer to this is not simple, nor clear cut.  There are people who's need to know outweighs their fear of the consequences of their illness. Others react differently. The best person to have the best approximation of how to go about it is the family doctor, who best knows the person's mindset.

A doctor who suspects a disease and does not tell the patient is guilty of medical misconduct.

The only legitimate question is how to tell the patient without producing excessive anxiety. What words to use? What to emphasize?

That might be a technical truth somewhere, but it isn’t reality.
Few doctors hold to that morality.

That’s the law. Rights and wrongs and good and bad behaviour is a different matter altogether. One should never confuse the law and ethics. The intention behind them is different.

I’m not confusing anything.

There is law.
There is ethical conduct as determined by a professional (medical) organization.
There is ethical conduct according to community (society) standards.

I don’t believe in your philosophy of ‘ignorance is bliss’. It’s unethical to not tell a patient that he has a disease.

I’m a little curious of your thoughts.
What is the “intention of law”?

I wish I had a kill-switch in case I ever got sick or injured in a way that would take over a year until I’m healed enough not to be incapacitated, and then years more to heal further, or if I got injured or sick in a way that would leave me with permanent serious difficulties. Or better yet, an internal fuse connecting my major arteries that would somehow know to break in one of those situations. I don’t consider that to be suicide, just a better way to die. What’s the worst that someone who’s lived through something like that can say to me, that they got through it so I should try to as well should something like that happen to me? I think, rather they’d hesitate to try talk me out of that perception, being they know about what I can only imagine based on my knowledge of my own, comparably, secondary struggles.

As to your example, I think that naïve fool should have kept his damn mouth shut. If they wanted to seriously be charitable doctors, rather than just playing the role for profit and fame, they only needed to have ridden through South America with their eyes open, and then they could have spent the remained of their lives neck deep in medical work. But, they had to move on to bigger things, like writing books with clichéd questions on the ethics of medicine.

dragon,

They were probably both right - the only difference was in the bedside manner. But, the man needed to be told the truth - Grenada was wrong in that - that he had a lump (which he probably already had to know and was worried about) but told the truth in a way that was helpful, not harmful…giving him hope in not quite knowing the outcome but that there could be a hopeful one and that he had to go for medical treatment.

The Hippocratic Oath requires that doctors “do no harm” in their practice of medicine…which requires reason, intelligence, compassion and I suppose even courage. To not have told the man would have been to do great harm, especially if the man chose to “believe” them to suit his purpose. It would also violate the doctor’s code of ethics…though neither of them were quite doctors…Guevara not as yet…and Grenada not at all.

At what cost? I suppose that would depend on the value one places on human life and on their own life.
Wouldn’t the doctors perspective and decisions have to first derive, be based on and from the patient’s outlook and hopes and desires…coming from the ethical code of “to do no harm”?

You guys realize that the scene is an allegory? The man represents the people, the tumor is political corruption and injustice. Che is determined that a cure must be quick and revolutionary.

A nice Catch on your part. Though this does not mean it is not also a real event and also one that allows us to mull over two positions.

And then what is the fun little motorcycle vacation an allegory for? Maybe it’s that one must just keep busy, and there is no difference how one goes about it; whether playing the role of some “savior” or joy riding around a continent?

Yes, that’s why I initially responded to it purely as a question of medical ethics.

I don’t think that the ethical dilemma is not very complex. The doctor has a responsibility to empower the patient so that the patient can decide how to act. Even if the outlook is hopeless, the patient can still make choices of a non-medical nature … perhaps settling financial affairs or family relationships.

The only cases where that might not apply is if there is no hope of treatment and no external factors. Maybe when doctor and patient are on a deserted island … the patient can’t do anything with the knowledge.
Or if doctor and patient are on the way up Everest, then the doctor might delay saying anything until they are on the way down.

Ahh, but there is a difference for you and those around you.

Existence is keeping busy. Life is choosing a path which is unique and meaningful for you.

When I watch movies, I pay attention to what else I am being asked to buy, besides what is obviously on the screen.
:wink:

 But that difference may be blurredsufficiently, so that the reality of the situation makes such distinctions look artificial and contrived, enough so, that  political correctness and medical ethics ,and patients right's and feeling may take on   a seemingly general formula for all ills.  It may in fact, develop into a metaphor, as Suzan Sontag would have it.

I think that Stuart has a tendency to slip into nihilism. That’s taking the long or the short view of things. In the long view, everyone dies so nothing that happens matters. In the short view, an event has no consequence. The medium view is aligned with a person’s lifetime. In that span of time, decisions have a significant impact.

All distinctions are in your mind and therefore only matter while you are alive and able to think.

I recognize medium views for myself, and I respect some of the medium views of others. All I know about those two people is from this thread and the front of shirts, but judging from that their medium views were no more refined that a dog running amok in an antique store.

To maintain the rich and powerful in their positions of wealth and power.

What are your ethics based on? Is it a principle, i.e. the application of rules derived from some philosophy or other, the product of the intellect, or is it concern for other individual human beings based on fellow feeling?

The principle is derived from observing fellow human beings. In this case, the principle is to empower individuals to act on their own behalf. This is preferable to having a person in authority making decisions for them.