Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:305 (5 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7562.305-b
EDITORIn the outcome of the interactive case report of his case, Neville vividly describes his frustration with the failure to explain his symptoms: the awareness of the ebbing away of doctors' sympathy, the wish that investigations would find somethinganythingwrong, and so end the uncertainty.1
Failure to find a cause for a problem is frustrating for doctors and patients, but it helps no one if doctors protect themselves from their failure by distancing themselves from the patient. We all know the frustration of failure to find a cause for a problem, if only when the engineer comes to look at the washing machine. When telling a patient the result of an investigation it is surely more helpful to say what the investigation rules out than just to say that it is normal. "This test shows that your problem is not due to kidney disease, cancer, or a fracture, but it has not given us any leads towards what is causing your symptoms" is both more true and less undermining.
As Peile points out in his commentary, no patient is every fully investigated. Patients often believe there is a test for everything, and doctors are better being honest about the limitations of medical knowledge and admitting the shared frustration. Thinking widely requires a relaxed and open mind and cannot be achieved if the relationship has become implicitly, even if not explicitly, adversarial. In this hunt doctors and patients are on the same side.
Judith H Harvey, salaried general practitioner
Caversham Group Practice, London NW5 2UP judith.harvey{at}btclick.com
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care