Xref: utzoo alt.sex:2136 sci.psychology:2239 sci.med:12194 sci.bio:2292 soc.singles:43817 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!oliver From: oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) Newsgroups: alt.sex,sci.psychology,sci.med,sci.bio,soc.singles Subject: Curbside Diagnoses? Message-ID: <14254@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 12 Sep 89 09:26:53 GMT References: <1658@unocss.UUCP> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 60 The Boston Globe had an interesting article today concerning the issues facing a physician who, on casual observation of a person in an everday circumstance, notices a possible pathological physical finding. The article was prompted by the case of the doctor who supposedly observed clubbing of baseball Commissioner Giamatti's fingers on television, and wrote to American League President Bobby Brown, a doctor, advising Giamatti to get a checkup. Brown passed the information on to Giamatti, who did nothing about it and died of cardiac arrest a few days later. Upon further review of the television sequence, however, it was determined that the doctor had erred and that the fingers he observed were not Giamatti's, but a man sitting behind him. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing some discussion on the following from both physicians and non-physicians. I think that, for the sake of rigor, we call all agree that there are trivial boundary cases where something should and should not be said. As examples, I would guess that a pregnant woman knows she's pregnant and you wouldn't have to go up to her and tell her (and if she's not, then you *really* don't want to say anything). On the other hand if someone is walking around with a gangrenous arm, there shouldn't be any hesistation in informing. But what about the in-between? Specifically, is a physician obligated to tell someone if, upon casual observation, (s)he thinks (s)he spots a potentially abnormal physical finding. Skin lesions and hormonal imbalances are probably the most common examples. More serious ones would be signs of cardiorespiratory impairment. The arguments against doing so include invasion of the person's privacy (which I don't really buy, how is just talking to someone an invasion of their privacy?), unnecessarily worrying someone (which I see as the major concern), and suspicion that the doctor is just trying to drum up business (maybe, but I hope unlikely). The percentages of such diagnoses probably are that they are mostly wrong, but is it better to err on the side of safety? I feel that it is a judgement call dependent upon the potential seriousness of the consequences, and I think that my tendency would be to err on the side of recommending that they get checked on. Skin malignancies have a bad downside if they're left alone, but if you pick them up, the Rx is relatively simple. Anyway, a skin malignancy would have to be pretty obvious for me to pick it up. Marfan's syndrome is another one that, if I had a strong suspicion, I would have trouble ignoring (but then, as one of the doctors was quoted, you could diagnose any basketball team as having Marfan's). Hormonal problems I would be less concerned with, and would be a much more difficult approach anyway (basically boiling down to polite ways of saying "Excuse me, but you look sort of funny . . .") If someone came up to me and said they though I had something (and convinced me they knew what they were talking about), I would probably be somewhat insulted and mutter something unkind, but would eventually check it out. Most of the doctors surveyed in the article seemed to believe that it was better to say nothing. So maybe with more experience, I might decide not follow up on my observations, as well. By the way, I don't know if any attempts have been made to try and contact the man whose fingers were mistaken for Giamatti's. Should there be? ____________________________ Jim Oliver oliver@athena.mit.edu oliver%mitwccf.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU