“A little information
can be a dangerous thing.”
I don’t know who first said that; no one seems to. But it is
used all the time, and as a physician I both see the impact of that little
knowledge on people’s health and the difficulty of striking a balance between
providing meaningful information in a form that people can use and oversimplifying
to the point of danger. I have worked very hard on honing this skill, and think
I do it reasonably well, but I am absolutely certain that I have failed
abysmally time and time again. Hopefully, it has not hurt too many people, but
who knows?
I have written before that one of my roles, as a friend and
family member, is to try to interpret for them what their doctor meant by what
s/he told them. Or, more correctly, what my friends and family members think s/he
told them. Indeed, a key part of this is trying to figure out what the doctor (presuming
they are reasonably competent) might have
said that led my friend/relative to think
that what they are telling me is what s/he said.
And, just as I make the assumption that these doctors are
reasonably competent, I make the assumption that those friends and relatives
are reasonably intelligent, or at least not particularly less so than the bulk
of the population (side note: I honestly think that, on average they are far more intelligent). This is borne out by
the fact that it is not just friends and relatives. From time to time, I overhear
conversations between other people about their health. One of the most common
places is the locker room at the gym; this is because I am there dressing for
long enough to be able to overhear a conversation, and also because, as a
retired person, I go in the middle of the day when all the other retired – and,
therefore, older, and more likely to have health problems – people are there. Usually
the conversation is bi-directional but almost always one of the people is
acting as a health consultant to the other, advising based on their personal
experience of having had, or having a friend or relative who had, the same
thing. Or, and here is where a lot of the danger comes from, something that
seems very similar.
[This is the time to review, either via YouTube or its
transcription on one of my old blogs, "Eggs
Benedict" and "Choosing Wisely": often the best thing to do is
nothing, the Woody Allen bit “Eggs Benedict”.]
Things that seem
similar may not be the same – or even similar. To a health professional, there
is a huge difference between an orthopedist
(a bone surgeon) and an orthodontist (a
dental specialist who straightens crooked teeth), but to a regular person they
sound a lot alike. And it is not only confusion of words; lots of conditions
that are very different sound very similar (you know, a lot of diseases end in “-itis”,
which just means “inflammation of”). And even conditions that are very similar – or even the same –
manifest differently in different people depending upon a lot of personal
characteristics (just to name a few: age, sex, weight, co-existing conditions
[another term that doctors use all the time that people may not understand],
and duration and exact character of symptoms and findings). Lots of stuff is
treated differently in its early stages than in its later stages, and often
many different treatments are available. Maybe the one the doctor chose for you
isn’t the best, and maybe the one you see advertised on TV or the home remedy advised
by your aunt will work better. Or maybe not. Maybe, even, there was some scientific
rationale behind that choice of treatment.
Which, of course, leads
inevitably to a short discussion of direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs, particularly
on television. I see these a lot more than I used to, not because I sit around
in retirement watching daytime TV but because of the same gym; while I’m on the
elliptical I am often unable to choose shows (ones with plots) because someone else
has already chosen the program on the group TV, and there are a lot of ads.
Many of them for treatments for pretty uncommon diseases. Which is, by the way,
a guarantee that they cost a fortune. After all, why advertise on TV, a very
expensive proposition, unless you stand to make a lot of money either because a
lot of people have the problem your drug treats (e.g., arthritis) or the drug
you are selling (clue: anything whose generic name ends in “-ib”, made from
recombinant DNA) is so expensive that even a small market will make you a
fortune? There is absolutely nothing at all good (and I’ll say that again!)
about direct to consumer advertising of drugs on TV (“ask your doctor about whether
[incredibly expensive] ‘Blorkamib’ is
right for you!”). Except, of course, for the drug company that makes it and
advertises it. These ads create unrealistic hope and expectation, create doubt
as to whether your doctor is up-to-date on the latest treatments (you know,
s/he is busy seeing patients all day so may not see the ads on daytime TV!),
and sets you up to expect miracles. (By the way, there are very few of these.)
If you must watch such commericials, I suggest you only focus on the fine print
possible – often common and very bad – side effects in the small print at the
end.
The late, great
Hawai’ian singer Israel Kamakawiwo’ole makes a valiant effort on the last cut of his
album “IZ” to explain the cause and treatment of the congestive heart
failure (along with, and in part caused by, his tremendous obesity) that
eventually killed him at the age of 38. It’s a pretty good discussion of the
role of oxygen, although it doesn’t quite get it right, but it may have helped
some of those who heard it. He had great influence; his
recording of “Somewhere over the rainbow” mixes up the lyrics from
different verses, but I suspect that for many people, hIZ lyrics are now the ones they know (so if they seem disconnected
to you, don’t blame original lyricist Yip Harburg!).
But it is not just singers
who have trouble with it; being educated and smart doesn’t make one medically
knowledgeable. I know this from treating lawyers, accountants, engineers,
English professors, and even medical school faculty in the basic sciences
(although the physiologists, unsurprisingly, understand heart failure better
than IZ…). It makes it hard to try to convey accurate information, as
completely as possible, without losing people’s ability to grok it and without
using metaphors that, while intended to help, may unintentionally send folks
off to the wrong conclusions. It is important to try, though, and to ask not if people understand (usually they’ll
say yes) but what they understood, so
you can correct any misinterpretations.
People will probably
do what their mother tells them to anyway.
2 comments:
Josh,
Here is the full quote:
It's found in Alexander Pope's poem An Essay on Criticism, composed in 1709. Pope wrote “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”Aug 27, 2014
The second part of the quote often is forgotten--it is admonishment to not base opinions on part of the facts
Steve Griffith
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
--from An Essay on Criticism (Alexander Pope, 1709).
It's at least as true now as it was then!
-----Paul Mermin
Post a Comment