What doctors won't do-Guardian article

[Oodsigma]

Interesting article

[claig]

Oodsigma, the link didn't work for me.

I have added the link again

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/19/what-doctors-wont-do

It is an interesting article. It shows that doctors also have different opinions, just like the rest of us.

I agree with some of those doctors and disagree with others.

[hellsbells76]

Oh surprise surprise, the obstetrician wouldn't have her first baby at home because of all the complications she sees primips having. Wouldn't occur to her that quite a lot of these complications may well have been caused by being in hospital in the first bloody place, would it?

[Sunnywithshowers]

I couldn't get that link to work - here it is again

Link

[hellsbells76]

...never mind that she doesn't see all the normal first labours because they'll be attended by midwives, so her perception might be slightly skewed.

[Gigondas]

Indeed hellsbells - the one on alternative therapy has two contradictory views. One of which is wrong as maybe some alternative therapies aren't proven (homeopathy), but others like acupuncture do have a real benefit in certain situations (eg back pain, post chemo fatigue).

[Oodsigma]

Think it was a mobile link

I thought the bits on testing were interesting. I always assumed it would be better to test for everything but they talked about the false positives with some tests

[2mummies]

Thank you for that, very interesting. Surprising to hear the 'againsts' for cancer screening.

[hellsbells76]

The midwife thinks the guidelines say drinking alcohol in pregnancy is ok: they don't, they recommend drinking none. Bit worrying - you'd think of you were being asked to put your name to something in a national paper you'd make sure your assertions were correct...

[hellsbells76]

Screening is quite controversial yes - it's one of the reasons they upped the age for smears. Far too many false positives and invasive treatments that weren't necessary in healthy young women. It's worked out on a population basis: if you screen everyone, you may catch x number of cancers early but you'll also cause y numbers of women unnecessary worry and unnecessary treatment. Difficult balancing act.

[Gigondas]

Maybe the againsts are cos of stress it can cause. I would say that the emotional toll of cancer is harde than physical one. So I think point with Psa is it might indicate something is natural as you age and probably needs no treatment. But if you have a positive test you end up in the treadmill of deciding on treatment, scans and tests which is no picnic.

[FunnysInLaJardin]

I was a bit about the midwife tbh. Most doctors have more common sense. Midwives are bound to say no coffee etc. They have to stick to the rules

[hellsbells76]

Midwives don't say 'no coffee'. They suggest limiting caffeine intake to one or two cups a day, per the guidance, but this is only advice and women are completely free to take that advice or ignore it completely :)

[FunnysInLaJardin]

I am sure the MW said no caffeine in the article

[hellsbells76]

(Oh and most midwives have plenty of common sense, thanks

[hellsbells76]

That one midwife said she said she wouldn't personally but I'd hope she's not allowing her personal opinion to influence the advice she gives to women in her job. You said 'midwives are bound to say no coffee to follow the rules', I was just pointing out that those actually aren't 'the rules' (or guidance, to be more accurate).

[CabbageLeaves]

Good article. I've always thought that just because we can does not mean we should

I would hate to see private medicine drive medical intervention. Increase in procedures which charge the patient but don't benefit them :(

[notcitrus]

Obviously it's pushing individual opinions over evidence as apparently readers need to 'relate' to facts, but it was nice to see explanations of why more screening isn't always better.

Reminds me of when my godmother said she hoped she'd never get cancer, and I figured there was no point in mentioning she 99% likely already had it, being 97...

[claig]

Good point, Cabbage.

Daily Mail often carries stories about unnecessary treatment and false positives etc. Not surprised by it at all. Interesting that even doctors don't always follow the 'guidance'.

During the swine flu crisis, I think the Mail reported that quite a lot of doctors etc. did not follow the advice to take the jab.

[hellsbells76]

Especially re prostate cancer being something most men for with, not of. Once men get past a certain age, they're extremely likely to have it, and pretty likely to die of old age before it has a chance to do them any harm at all. In a lot of cases, ignorance really is bliss.

[hellsbells76]

*die not for, stupid phone.

[bassetfeet]

Prostate cancer is a killer believe me . Yes there are men who have the disease that is slow growing I accept that .
My husband had no symptoms whatsoever and through a health check we found he has an aggressive incurable prostate cancer now. No symptoms .
The age is getting younger all the time that men get this disease . A PSA check at least gives them the option of treating or not . Too late for us [and lots like us ] but I am evangelic about all men having the option to be screened as we are for breast cancer .

[CinnamonCandle]

Helen Drew, GP on sleeping tablets: I can't imagine any situation in which I would start using them

Er, how about chronic insomnia? Trying to function after a few nights of virtually no sleep I think most people would try anything. I don't think many people who are addicted to sleeping tablets planned it that way! Sorry but that really annoyed me!

[MorrisZapp]

I agree about the sleeping tablets. Used sensibly, they are not addictive.

And yes, the situation theyd be used in would be the situation they were designed for. No imagination required.

[cumfy]

The over-prescription of sleeping pills is a ridiculous and dangerous situation.

I doubt you will find many doctors who would take benzos or z-drugs willingly, yet they appear to dish them out with gay abandon.