• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

This is what real doctors do, not help you look beautiful

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Real doctors save lives, fake doctors drive lambos.


Nurse in mask (Credit: Getty Images)

By Richard Hollingham11th June 2020

Before the 1930s, many of those undergoing the most complicated surgeries died soon after. One gifted surgeon made a simple but drastic change which transformed healthcare.
Article continues below
ADVERTISEMENT

H
Harvey Cushing was the most brilliant brain surgeon of his generation. His patients adored him, describing him as caring and kind, but he kept his staff in a perpetual state of terror. He was intolerant of mistakes and could be cold, harsh and bullying. But he was forgiven, because his results spoke for themselves.
On 15 April 1931, Cushing carried out his 2,000th brain tumour operation at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The patient was 31-year-old Ida Herskowitz, who had been diagnosed with a tumour that was causing her severe headaches and gradually destroying her vision.
Over several hours, Cushing worked patiently, meticulously and methodically (warning: graphic footage of surgery). He worked away at her exposed brain, clamping off blood vessels and gently cutting away at the tissue to restore her sight.
Before Cushing, eight out of 10 brain surgery patients died. In his hospital, the surgeon reduced mortality to just 8%. Herskowitz would survive into old age.
You might also like:
“He was hailed as the father of neurosurgery,” says Dennis Spencer, the Harvey and Kate Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery at Yale University School of Medicine. “He was devoted to his patients and devoted to transforming surgery of the head into a real specialty.”
In a time before antibiotics, and the ever-present risk of bacterial infection killing anyone going under the knife, Cushing operated under the strictest cleanliness. He wore gloves and a mask, doing whatever he could to sterilise the wound and reduce the chance of disease. Crucially, Cushing continued the care after he had finished his operations – the period when patients were at greatest risk of dying.
“Not all surgeons would pay that much attention to the patient once they’d completed their operation,” says Spencer. “Cushing carried over his meticulousness during surgery to the post-operative care of the patients.”

In a time before antibiotics, and the ever-present risk of bacterial infection killing anyone going under the knife

In a time before antibiotics, and the ever-present risk of bacterial infection killing anyone going under the knife
He often tended to patients’ wounds himself, ensuring they were kept free of infection. He introduced strict observation systems and record keeping – and the first widespread use of x-rays and blood pressure monitoring. Each individual patient was the focus of care by a team of specialist staff.
“Cushing's whole ward was more like an intensive care unit than other surgeons,” Spencer explains. “The nurses and junior surgical staff knew that if the bed sheets were not tucked in properly, the dressing wasn't clean or the patient was complaining, they were going to be in big trouble.”
Cushing’s ward bore little relation to today’s intensive care units – where patient's are now surrounded by sensors and monitors – but the concept was similar. As operations became more complex through World War Two and into the 1950s – with, for example, the first open heart surgery – Cushing’s pioneering post-operative care became widespread, saving countless lives (You can read more about Cushing and see the collection of brains he accumulated over his lifetime here].
In August 1952, the Blegdam Hospital in the Danish capital Copenhagen was overwhelmed by hundreds of seriously ill polio patients
But Cushing’s early form of specialist intensive care was for planned surgery, not trauma or disease. That owes its origins to an epidemic.
For the first half of the 20th Century, almost every year, tens of thousands of people around the world became infected with polio. The virus tended to strike in summer, targeting children and leading initially to flu-like symptoms. In more serious cases, it went on to attack the nervous system, paralysing victims and leaving them unable to breathe. Those who survived often ended up with permanent disabilities or breathing difficulties.
In August 1952, the Blegdam Hospital in the Danish capital Copenhagen was overwhelmed by hundreds of seriously ill polio patients. Without assistance to help them breathe, most would die. The only treatment available was a mechanical respirator system, known as an iron lung.
Harvey Cushing had a reputation as a hard taskmaster, but his brilliance transformed hospital care (Credit: Getty Images)

Harvey Cushing had a reputation as a hard taskmaster, but his brilliance transformed hospital care (Credit: Getty Images)
Patients lay within these coffin-like tanks, with just their head protruding at the top. By generating a vacuum within the casing, the machine forced the lungs to expand to pull in air. An alternative system, known as a shell ventilator, used a dome-like casing strapped to the patient’s chest to aid the expansion and contraction of the lungs.
But there was only one iron lung in the whole of Copenhagen, just six of the chest ventilators and 316 patients that needed treatment.
“It was really desperate,” says Fiona Kelly, a consultant in intensive care medicine at the Royal United Hospitals, Bath, in southern England and co-author of a scientific paper on the response to the epidemic. “Over 300 patients would have died.”
The chief physician at the hospital called an urgent meeting to find a solution. Anaesthetist Bjorn Ibsen suggested that instead of forcing the chest to expand using negative pressure provided by an iron lung, they forced air directly into the lungs with a tube. It was a technique developed for use during surgery.
Hundreds of doctors, medical and dental students were drafted-in to pump the bags and monitor the patients
But pushing a tube through the mouth into the trachea was far too uncomfortable for patients to endure for long periods and only feasible when they were anaesthetised. Ibsen proposed using the relatively new technique of tracheostomy. This involved cutting a small hole in the neck, just below the larynx, and inserting a tube directly into the lungs.
This tube was attached to a simple rubber bag, which could be pumped by hand. Hundreds of doctors, medical and dental students were drafted-in to pump the bags and monitor the patients – up to 70 in the hospital at any one time.
“A tracheostomy isn’t painful at all, a patient can be awake and communicating,” says Kelly. “If ventilation was provided by a medical student, like at Blegdam, or using a ventilator as we do these days, then we can slowly reduce the amount of support a patient needs as they recover.”
Polio patients had to endure long and uncomfortable treatment in iron lung machines before the advent of portable ventilators (Credit: Getty Images)

Polio patients had to endure long and uncomfortable treatment in iron lung machines before the advent of portable ventilators (Credit: Getty Images)
Ibsen’s strategy saved dozens of lives and led to the hospital establishing the world’s first intensive care unit (ICU), with a dedicated ward and nursing staff. But intensive care is not only the idea of a particular ward within a hospital but a principle of how to look after the most critically ill patients.
“Intensive care is an independent medical specialty in its own right,” says Daniele Bryden, vice-dean of the UK’s Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. “So, it's not just a place, it's about a whole package of care and a whole ethos of care delivery for a person.”
Ibsen’s innovations in Demark were gradually adopted around the world. Combined with the innovations in post-operative care pioneered by Cushing, they led to most large hospitals building specialist units.
Hospitals established ‘shock wards’, bringing together technology and specialists – nurses, pharmacists, doctors and anaesthetists – to treat the most severely ill patients
In 1971, Dennis Spencer helped convert part of a surgical ward into an intensive care unit at Yale New Haven Hospital in Connecticut.
“Because it wasn’t compulsory to wear seatbelts in cars, we were seeing a lot of severe spinal injuries that needed specialist care,” Spencer says. “We went in on the weekend, painted the place, ripped up the carpet and put in five beds. We then began to train nurses to pay particular attention to the things that were necessary for spinal cord injury patients.”
Elsewhere, hospitals established "shock wards", bringing together technology and specialists – nurses, pharmacists, doctors and anaesthetists – to treat the most severely ill patients. With many patients needing pain management and treatment under sedation, anaesthetists have proved essential.
Today, larger hospitals might have several different intensive care units to manage a range of conditions – from severe symptoms of Covid-19 to gunshot wounds, strokes or surgical complications.
“I feel that we’re the hub of the hospital,” says Kelly. “We take the sickest patients at all hours of the day and night and it’s amazing to see patients who I thought would never survive get better every day and eventually leave our unit with a big smile on their faces.”
Cushing carried over his meticulous approach to care to after the operation, when patients were most likely to encounter complications (Credit: Getty Images)

Cushing carried over his meticulous approach to care to after the operation, when patients were most likely to encounter complications (Credit: Getty Images)
Tens of thousands of people owe their lives to intensive care. In the UK, for example, three quarters of people who enter an ICU will survive. But it’s important to also consider what happens when people are discharged.
“People who’ve been in critical care need ongoing support after that critical care stay and that's an important aspect,” says Bryden. “It's not just about survival, it's about the quality of the survival.”
And ICUs are facing other challenges. Cushing was the first to introduce technology such as blood pressure monitoring and, today, technology is at the heart of modern ICUs. But as patients have become surrounded with more and more machines, such as ventilators, heart monitors and sensors for vital signs such as temperature and blood oxygen, there have been new complications.
“The vast numbers of probes and machines are now giving the doctors lots of data but it's all scattered and they have to put it together in their head,” says Spencer. “What's coming next is using machine learning to develop algorithms so that you take all that disparate information and put it together to mean something – that's the future of intensive care units.”
What started with an obsessive and difficult surgeon and the rapid response to a pandemic, has changed the face of medicine. “The impact of what they created can’t be quantified,” says Kelly. “We owe these pioneers everything.”
Richard Hollingham is a science and space journalist, feature writer for BBC Future and the author of Blood and Guts, A History of Surgery.
--
Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story,
sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “The Essential List”. A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
back then can be like this

" he kept his staff in a perpetual state of terror. He was intolerant of mistakes and could be cold, harsh and bullying. But he was forgiven, because his results spoke for themselves "

Nowadays, patient complain staff complain everyone complain...... You got results also people will say that kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. Times have changed. Must explain and be courteous , informed consent, patient has final say, patient decides not doctor decides.

No more man. Just do what everyone wants make them happy. As long as don't kill patient is ok. The goal is to do the job, save as many as you can, and make EVERYONE as happy as possible in the process (even if cannot save).

Medical field is not a goal oriented field. Doctors are not paid as per successes. They are paid as per encounters.

So why bother sticking your neck out? Why bother telling the patient to listen to you and not the bullshit stuff on internet? What for? In fact in doing so kena complain only more trouble. Do you get paid more? Nope. Do you get medal? Nope. Do you get thanks? Nope.

Which is why the rise of these fields like aesthetics. Which is essentially doing what the patient wants.
 
Last edited:

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
back then can be like this

" he kept his staff in a perpetual state of terror. He was intolerant of mistakes and could be cold, harsh and bullying. But he was forgiven, because his results spoke for themselves "

Nowadays, patient complain staff complain everyone complain...... You got results also people will say that kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. Times have changed. Must explain and be courteous , informed consent, patient has final say, patient decides not doctor decides.

No more man. Just do what everyone wants make them happy. As long as don't kill patient is ok. The goal is to do the job, save as many as you can, and make EVERYONE as happy as possible in the process (even if cannot save).

Medical field is not a goal oriented field. Doctors are not paid as per successes. They are paid as per encounters.

So why bother sticking your neck out? Why bother telling the patient to listen to you and not the bullshit stuff on internet? What for? In fact in doing so kena complain only more trouble. Do you get paid more? Nope. Do you get medal? Nope. Do you get thanks? Nope.

Which is why the rise of these fields like aesthetics. Which is essentially doing what the patient wants.

Is this unique to Singapore or a global phenomenon? Is it the same in the rest of Asean?
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
Is this unique to Singapore or a global phenomenon? Is it the same in the rest of Asean?

Global.

The world has changed. You see the protests around the world? BLM?

Nowadays the whole concept is the individual's rights and wants. Whims and fancies. There is no right or wrong. It is what the person you are serving wants and likes.

Put it this way

If you saw the doctor and he follow the guidelines and treat your accordingly but you DO NOT LIKE that treatment plan (eg he says no need antibiotics when the reason why you go to see dr is to get antibiotics)

VS

If you saw the doctor and he did what you want and give you what you want but NEVER FOLLOW GUIDELINES (which you have no idea what they are).

Which dr will be more likely to kena complaint, bad review etc?
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
Trouble is.....

If the doctor don't follow guidelines and kena complaint then he has run afoul with the SMC. Will be disciplined. But he has good business cos his patients all love him.

If the doctor follow guidelines but patient not happy then they will complain anyway (often telling lies) and doctor still got to answer for it. In the end after investigation might be told ok case closed but lots of inconvenience wasted time spent on investigation process. PLUS patient will bad mouth the doctor and say he is lousy and his business will not be popular.

So you say how leh?
 

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Global.

The world has changed. You see the protests around the world? BLM?

Nowadays the whole concept is the individual's rights and wants. Whims and fancies. There is no right or wrong. It is what the person you are serving wants and likes.

Put it this way

If you saw the doctor and he follow the guidelines and treat your accordingly but you DO NOT LIKE that treatment plan (eg he says no need antibiotics when the reason why you go to see dr is to get antibiotics)

VS

If you saw the doctor and he did what you want and give you what you want but NEVER FOLLOW GUIDELINES (which you have no idea what they are).

Which dr will be more likely to kena complaint, bad review etc?

I cannot speak for others, but I will always work closely together with the doctor to come up with the best treatment plan and ultimately differ to her recommendation as she is the expert that I sought out.

If I were a doctor and faced a patient who demanded a course of treatment against my better judgement, I would decline to treat the patient. Hence I would drive a Camry instead of a Lambo.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
If I were a doctor and faced a patient who demanded a course of treatment against my better judgement, I would decline to treat the patient. Hence I would drive a Camry instead of a Lambo.

The issue is not about $$$ and what you can afford to drive as a doctor.

The problem nowadays is that a patient who has been declined treatment might feel aggrieved and hence take to social media to complain. To make matters worse the complaint may be embellished with half truths or outright lies as a form of revenge against the doctor who has the gall to refuse to treat someone.

I count my lucky stars that I am now retired and have no line presence plus I don't need to deal with anyone in the real world.
 

pvtpublic

Alfrescian
Loyal
The problem nowadays is that a patient who has been declined treatment might feel aggrieved and hence take to social media to complain. To make matters worse the complaint may be embellished with half truths or outright lies as a form of revenge against the doctor who has the gall to refuse to treat someone.

I count my lucky stars that I am now retired and have no line presence plus I don't need to deal with anyone in the real world.

The doctor should sue the pants off such a liar. Or she can seek recourse under POFMA?

I'm surprised to learn a doctor can face such consequences simply for declining to take a patient. Even sex workers have the right to not screw clients if they so fancy.

Sex workers have more rights than doctors. Golly Gosh.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
The doctor should sue the pants off such a liar. Or she can seek recourse under POFMA?

I'm surprised to learn a doctor can face such consequences simply for declining to take a patient. Even sex workers have the right to not screw clients if they so fancy.

Sex workers have more rights than doctors. Golly Gosh.
If a patient has complained to the college or SMC, the doctor is NOT allowed to sue the patient. Doing so will cause fear. And the college feels that if patients are fearful to make complaints because of lawsuits then the college is unable to do its work of self regulating the profession.

See below case

A College Hearing Tribunal found Dr. Joanne Tse, a general practitioner from Calgary, guilty of unprofessional conduct.

Background:

‘KW’ and ‘ST’ were discharged as patients of Dr. Tse after they raised concerns regarding aspects of their care. ST subsequently filed a complaint with the College against Dr. Tse, regarding a medical appointment between KW and Dr. Tse, the inappropriate storage of clinic records, inappropriate follow-up of laboratory results and inappropriate discharge from practice. The matter was investigated and with the permission of ST, an informal and educational resolution was sought with Dr. Tse. Dr. Tse agreed through her legal counsel to an informal resolution, including certain undertakings on the storage of clinic records to ensure availability to patients.

However, the Complaints Director was informed by ST that Dr. Tse, while agreeing to the resolution, had also initiated a defamation lawsuit against ST and KW in civil court, which was confirmed after an investigation. The Complaints Director decided to charge Dr. Tse with unprofessional conduct and proceed with a formal Hearing as per the Health Professions Act. The formal charge stated:

“[Dr. Tse] did inappropriately commence a defamation legal action against ST and KW on Oct. 7, 2017, based on the complaint made by ST to the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (the “College”) regarding a medical appointment with [Dr. Tse] on Aug. 10, 2015, the confidentiality of patient records, the timeliness on follow up of lab test results and your discharge of ST and KW as your patients, which resulted in the College’s investigation.”

Order of the Hearing Tribunal:

Dr. Tse admitted to the allegation. The orders of the Hearing Tribunal included Dr. Tse's responsibility for the costs of the hearing ($36,188.28) and a two-week suspension of her practice permit.

The Hearing Tribunal specifically noted that statements made by ST in her complaint to the College were privileged and should not have been used for the purposes of civil litigation. The Tribunal also agreed that Dr. Tse's actions were inconsistent with the Code of Ethics and were specifically a breach of precept 46, which expects all physicians to recognize the privilege of self-regulation and exhibit the responsible behaviours that are seen to merit this privilege. Finally, the Tribunal saw the inappropriate effect civil actions could have if seen as acceptable retribution against complainants, impacting the ability of the College to protect the public from unskilled practice or unethical behaviour, which could lead to the loss of independent regulation of the profession.

Doctors have to strongly justify and explain why they refuse treatment to a patient. The doctor cannot refuse treatment in most cases.

See below

Terminating The Physician-Patient Relationship In Office-Based Settings
Under Review: No
Issued by Council: January 1, 2010
Reissued by Council: January 9, 2014
  1. A regulated member who terminates a relationship with a patient must have reasonable grounds for discharging the patient from his or her medical practice and document those reasons in the patient’s record.
  2. A regulated member must notdischarge a patient:
    1. based on a prohibited ground of discrimination including age, gender, marital status, medical condition, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status;
    2. because a patient makes poor lifestyle choices (such as smoking);
    3. because a patient fails to keep appointments or pay outstanding fees unless advance notice has been given to the patient;
    4. because the patient refuses to follow medical advice unless the patient is repeatedly non-adherent despite reasonable attempts by the physician to address the non-adherence; or
    5. because the regulated member relocated his/her practice to a new location/setting to which current patients could be reasonably expected to follow.
  3. Notwithstanding clause 2(e), a regulated member mayterminate patient relationships if:
    1. the regulated member is changing scope of practice wherein current patients would no longer fit within the new scope; or
    2. a relocation occurs more than twelve (12) months after closing an earlier practice.
  4. When unilaterally terminating a relationship with a patient, a regulated member must:
    1. give advance written notice of intention to terminate care and provide a timeline that is commensurate with the continuing care needs of the patient;
    2. advise the patient of the reasons for termination of the physician-patient relationship unless disclosure of the reasons could be expected to:
      1. result in immediate and grave harm to the patient’s mental or physical health or safety;
      2. threaten the mental health and physical health or safety of another individual; or
      3. pose a threat to public safety.
    3. ensure continuity of follow-up care for outstanding investigations and serious medical conditions prior to the termination date or arrange transfer of care to another regulated member;
    4. provide or arrange for care until the termination of care; and
    5. establish a process for transfer of the patient’s medical information in response to future requests by the patient or an authorized third party.
  5. Notwithstanding clause (4), a regulated member mayimmediately discharge a patient if:
    1. the patient poses a safety risk to office staff, other patients or the regulated member;
    2. the patient is abusive to the regulated member, staff or other patients;
    3. the patient fails to respect professional boundaries; or
    4. the regulated member is leaving medical practice because of personal illness or other urgent circumstances

As you can see from above it is very hard to terminate a patient and refuse treatment.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
The issue is not about $$$ and what you can afford to drive as a doctor.

The problem nowadays is that a patient who has been declined treatment might feel aggrieved and hence take to social media to complain. To make matters worse the complaint may be embellished with half truths or outright lies as a form of revenge against the doctor who has the gall to refuse to treat someone.

I count my lucky stars that I am now retired and have no line presence plus I don't need to deal with anyone in the real world.

Extremely common these days.

Plus the system is such there is nothing to lose on the part of the patient in lying and everything to gain.
 

nayr69sg

Super Moderator
Staff member
SuperMod
I cannot speak for others, but I will always work closely together with the doctor to come up with the best treatment plan and ultimately differ to her recommendation as she is the expert that I sought out.

If I were a doctor and faced a patient who demanded a course of treatment against my better judgement, I would decline to treat the patient. Hence I would drive a Camry instead of a Lambo.

You cannot decline to treat the patient.

The patient can decline treatment from you and walk off but you cannot tell the patient to buzz off.

Simply put if the patient refuses to leave your consult room till you give them what they want you cannot do much about it.

The simplest way out is to give them what they want. Of course to a limit. If they are asking you to do something that is downright illegal eg 10000 sleeping pills or morphine then you have to consider the risks vs benefits.

When I was a GP I know of doctors who use outdated means of monitoring diabetes and tell patients their blood sugars are ok because they know the lady doesnt want to hear it is bad and does not want to take more medication anyway. They like this doctor. The young locum dr comes in and says wah your sugars are high need to do HBA1c need to eat more medicine and the lady says I dont like this dr I want to see old Dr X.

Even when the old lady eventually ended up with renal failure she still loved Dr X because he is very caring friendly and good to her.

Medicine is an art.
 
Top