Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Let Me Tell You About My Doctor

Wow, Dinah brought up a great topic. She said: "So how come it's okay for patients to blog about their psychiatrists, without disguise, without permission, without hesitation?"

I just had to address this because this one-sidedness (if that's a word) is something I see in the correctional world. Here's how it happens:

Inmate X gets released and goes to the media. He/she alleges that the correctional facility, as well as correctional physician or nurses, are horrible incompetent sadistic people who provided terrible care. Inmate X is quoted in the newspaper along with detailed allegations of how he/she was mistreated. Because of healthcare privacy laws, the news media cannot be given factual information from the medical record which directly contradicts the inmate's claims. The article states only that 'the facility/administrator declined to provide information about inmate X citing medical confidentiality'. Thus, it appears that someone is covering up something.

Let me be clear that I have never personally been involved in one of these scenarios, but from my professional colleagues I can tell you that it happens. Patients are allowed to reveal their own information, but we cannot do the same without their permission. Over the course of time I've seen some pretty astounding self-revelations: former patients who have gone on TV talk shows to talk about their crimes and subsequent psychiatric care, patients who have had their offenses turned into made-for-TV movies and television episodes, and patients who have written books about their issues. (I made a cameo appearance in one book but was not mistaken for a nun. The author did not seek my permission.) To my knowledge there is no case law to suggest that this behavior constitutes any kind of de facto waiver of confidentiality.

Now we come to the blogosphere. Here, the landscape may be very different. The blogosphere is a public forum of the nth magnitude. There are numerous cases here in the US in which bloggers, and even their service providers, have been found liable for libel or defamation. I refer you to the Internet Journalist for a very nice little overview of case law surrounding invasion of privacy and defamation on the Internet.

So to get back to Dinah's point, it may really NOT be OK for patients to blog in a negative and undisguised fashion about their mental health providers. The real question is: how do you decide what to do about it? It's a situation similar to the one I discussed in Fully Charged Battery, where I talked about filing criminal charges against patients. If they're still your patient, you will certainly damage what little alliance you may have left by filing a libel suit against them. You could bring it up as a therapeutic issue within session, but then you've created a situation where the patient knows you've read their blog and there are things going on outside the session. Or you could decide that a patient who posts negative information about you is simply someone you don't want to continue treating. Regardless, it's a nasty situation. Patient who blog about their doctors/therapists may do well to consider the same precautions that health care bloggers follow.


DrivingMissMolly said...

Welllllll, I blog about my psychiatrist. I've blogged here about my psychiatrist AND used his name. I went back several weeks ago and searched for that post to delete it, but I think it still comes up in a search on his name.

I've posted his reply e-mails on my blog, with personal info removed.

I have a right to blog about my psychiatrist. I am torn about whether to use his name or not. I figure that anyone looking him up and finding my blog would discount my opinion anyway, since I am a nut.

I think he could do me far more damage than I could do to him. He could refuse to see me, refuse to refill meds, have me commmitted, cause me to lose my job, etc. He has all the power.

I've never lied about him. I think my ambivalence and black and white thinking about him and many other things which is a side-effect of my illness (borderline personality disorder) are obvious in my blog.
It is also obvious that I like him.

If he wants to sue me he can, but it will just make him look bad. If he asks me to remove those posts, I will. But it's not like I have a lot of readers, so who cares?


Anonymous said...

Here is a report of a Flordia slander case filed (then dropped) by a dental practice against an unhappy patient who created a website critical of the dentists.

Gerbil said...

Is there a difference between blogging one's therapist by name; and blogging about one;s neighbor (or babysitter, or plumber, or kid who mows the lawn, or piano tuner) by name?

For that matter, is it only a topic for discussion if the content is negative?

I am sometimes tempted to blog in great detail about everyday random interactions with strangers, but I always ask myself beforehand whether 1) the person would recognize him/herself and 2) they would be upset by the content. This is why I usually wait a day or two to post--most people will forget mundane the stuff I remember.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with blogging about one's providers, as long as one doesn't mind the provider seeing it. But the internet is not as private as one might think, and therein lies the problem.

ClinkShrink said...

Gerbil I think you nailed it. It's no different that any private citizens talking (very) publicly about one another.

Dr. X, thanks for the interesting link. I see that now a number of states are passing legislation to specifically address the issue of Internet slander.

NeoNurseChic said...

Blogging about a patient is MUCH different than a patient blogging about a doctor, however. I hope the reasons why are obvious... But I will say that I agree that one has to be careful about slander and libel. I have, in the past, posted negative things about my neurologist (who I do like), but never have posted his name. And I've also posted positive things about him. I have said a lot about what goes on in various appts.... This is not the same as them posting about what goes on in my appts, of course! And when saying something negative, I don't then paint the provider with a brush that says they are a bad person or anything like that. I may not like one or two things they do, but I can still like them on the whole... I try to stay away from names when I blog....with the exception of my own name - and of some of the closer people in my life who I dont' feel worried about mentioning!!

FooFoo5 said...

I am, again, inspired to share my ambivalence by the interesting topic you raise.

In my situation, a forensic population that we know is 30% psychopathic and greater than 70% chemically dependent - notorious for their deceit and manipulation - spoke out against their "caregivers" until a federal judge actually determined that the system and its providers were as grossly incompetent and indifferent as accused. The hospital contained in the facility where I now work literally lost its certification until the staff was replaced. Now the State of CA is, deservedly, under siege by a federally appointed receiver. Mine is not a defense of the bad guy. In fact, with the exception of the grossly mentally ill with whom I work, I am generally sickened by the sense of entitlement. But those who lined their pockets at the expense of the mentally ill needed to be exposed and eliminated, yet I have not heard a single one exposed by name. They were allowed to quietly slither away.

For myself, I choose to document, for anyone or no one, an experience I find so astonishingly foreign and contrary to my life experience, extraordinarily complex, brutally dangerous, shockingly educational on many levels, and in the end, oddly fulfilling. My reflections include interactions with patients, but it is not about patients. I use amalgam and disguise to illustrate a segment of us that is generally considered the most loathsome, but who can explain affinity?

Talk about my ass all you want on the internet or anywhere else. No one can tarnish my personal integrity but me. And all having been said, I'm much more afraid of getting my ass kicked than being sued!

Anonymous said...

While I'm not a qualified doctor/nurse/health professional (yet), I agree with what NeoNurseChic said; blogging about a patient is different from a patient blogging about his or her doctor. I feel like I'm basically reinforcing/repeating what has been mentioned before, but I think it's really important to respect the privacy of someone whose trust you struggled (or maybe not) to gain.

I can see this from the perspective of both the patient and the clinician as I've had experience with both (to an extent). As a patient, would I really want my doctor blathering about my experience with clinical depression? No, honestly. It's a bit unsettling when that happens.

At the same time, clinicians are humans and are susceptible to the same problems/issues other humans are. I have some experience from this perspective as well, and it's hard not to tell at least another co-worker about what interesting tidbits have transpired over the day. Then again, I usually hesitate to talk about the people I encounter and their problems with my own friends and family...

It's a double-edged sword, basically. Can and should a clinician be able to file a lawsuit against a patient who, in their own way, violated them through defamation/libel on a medium that's public?


On another completely unrelated note, there's a new show on Lifetime about the professional and private lives of fictional psychiatrists and therapists. I'm curious as to what the Three Shrinks have to say about it:
State of Mind

Ladyk73 said...

I must say...As a blogger, I am known in the internet world as Ladyk73. (I am very open to letting people know my real name, but I don't go around advertising it) So, as a blogger, I would not tell the world my doctor's name. If I stated my doctor's name, my own identity could be disclosed.

I do go to self-help groups, and many people complain or praise their doctors by name. Most of time, other people in group rush to defend the providers in question. However, I must say, I had a horrible psy NP (for me). And I know two other people who had bad experiences with the same person. Go figure.

My most important point....
Most of the time, the Dr. has the power. Especially when a patient is symptomatic. One could say that the patient has the power...the power of choice. But with mental health, being very very depressed or psychotic...a patient will not have the ability to use that power (of choice).

As doctors, you have social authority that transcends your time in clinical duties.

twilite said...

Thank you for giving the other --patients can blog without qualms when doctors are sued for their opinions on no-face patients! Couldn't put this better.

Patients have the right and doctors don't? Ha! Augh!

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that it's only libel if what is said is false.

Anonymous said...

The truth can also be judged to be libel. Anyway, what is truth? Libel is much easier to define than truth. The truth doesn't set you free.People can't stand the truth. That is the only true thing I know.

Anonymous said...

Anon, I don't understand how it can be libel if the information is true. For example, if I said Dr. X has been convicted of DUI then that would not be libel if he had in fact been convicted of DUI. Now, if I said Dr. X is a drunk, maybe that would be viewed as libel I don't know.


Anonymous said...

The truth is not always a defence in the case of libel, at least not the world over. If the comments are written down for others to read and they are damaging to the reputation of someone else, then a libel case can often be made. Doc X may have been convicted of DUI, but Doc X might make the case that his punishment was a suspended license to drive, not practice medicine. Then, say patient publicized this in writing saying that the Doc was a drunk. The doc could say this was libelous, true or not, because his/ her reputation, standing, livelihood has been damaged.
I don't think it is libelous to say, "I read in today's paper that Doc X had his license suspended for DUI." So to avoid being sued one would have to stick with the facts, no opinions, no commentary etc. The National Enquirer has lots of bucks to pay out in damages for making all sorts of claims, true, untrue. Most people seem to write about things that they would not necessarily bring to court; it is their opinion.
So, like I said, be prepared to back it up. On the other hand, docs should be prepared to take some amount of criticism ,just like everyone else, so long as it does not cross the line into libelous territory. It should not be a crime to rate a doc and say that you are constantly kept waiting (not okay unless the doc is a heart surgeon and his other patients keep having heart attacks right when you show up). It should be okay to say that you find that the doc has good or bad bedside manner and things like that. People go shopping for docs just like they shop for junk on Amazon or Ebay. Everyone is a commodity.

Roy said...

I kinda agree with that last comment. I think it is good to have a way for folks to rate docs on things like price, bedside manner, office waiting time, friendliness of office staff, etc. Like it or not, we are a commodity of sorts, but more like a branded commodity... not just bottled water, but Roy water, flavored with lime and sparlking with French cartesian well effervescence (that allows me to charge more, if you happen to prefer lime-flavored shrinks).

Anonymous said...

Roy, if you were limey then you would have typed flavoured with the u.
The most important thing I would like to see acknowledged is that it is not a two way street. The original question of why patients get to write about docs and not docs write about patients, was ill considered. Anyway, docs do write about patients. It is called a file, and it can follow you around for a very long time.

Anonymous said...

Oh ,and if you want to charge more, lick a battery.

Roy said...

Damn! I can't believe I missed that opportunity (limey... flavoured). Thank you... that made my day.

Batteries aside, I agree that people should have much more freedom to write about their doctor than the other way around. But, I think it should be generic enough that it does not take away from your own confidentiality... after all, if you write all about yourself in the context of your doctor's visit, then you are essentially giving up your own privacy on that particular matter.

Anonymous said...

Yup, that's why they call me Anon and why I do not blog or speak on cordless phones.

Sarebear said...

Hey, Clink, don't sugarcoat it, tell us what you REALLY think.

A gentle heckle from someone who wonders if I should've said what I said in my comment to the previous post (Dinah's).

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Naturally we shouldn't say anything about patients unless we are involved in a court defense. In my view, you can talk about the dynamics of a mechanism by describing some aspect of a patient situation as long as the person isn't identifiable. As an aside, when I published a set of case reports on nightmares, the involved patients who were still around regreted that their real initials weren't used; I felt the same way. It seems we spend half our time complaining about lawyers; and, I suppose your view of the outcome in the Libby case is different from mine, I don't see a courtroom and a libel trial as the real avenue for the experience of heavenly truth. To be misportrayed by a sociopath is merely to have additional evidence for the diagnosis. HIPAA, by the way usually misinterpreted overly strictly in terms of doc to doc communication, merely codified properly elegant behavior which is an extension of the Hippocratic Oath. "I am not at liberty to say" is what we should tell ourslves (since mostly nobody else is going to be asking us anyway).

Alison Cummins said...

bMy identity as a patient is private, and is mine to keep private or make known as I care to.

My doctor's identity as a doctor is public, and as long as she serves the public, is the public's business.

"Anyway, docs do write about patients. It is called a file, and it can follow you around for a very long time." Yup. And this kind of writing has a lot more power than most blogs.

Besides, as a psych patient I have no credibility anyway. My words mean nothing.

Anonymous said...

Yes, which is all why the original question disturbed me so much. any provider who has to ask the question has lost a certain perspective of their role, their power (here we go, someone is going to write that they don't recall calling themselves god or anything) but it is enormous power. if my shrink had a blog and I happened to be reading it, I would have walked away if I saw that question. Kind of like "Hey shrink, you are really stupid" is very different from "Hey patient, you are really stupid". (Even if one is actually really stupid)
Roy ,of the jelly sandwich name, no one who blogs is really anonymous.

Roy said...

Anon, I think you missed the point of the post, which is that the doctor-patient relationship is a relationship between two people, not between a person and a faceless, corporate entity. It's not all about the doctor has power and the pt does not -- au contraire, the pt has most of that power, and it's important that they use it responsibly. Their health. Their body. Their control. Increasingly, doctors are more like advisors -- and we need to get used to that.

Anonymous said...

Must disagree. The pt does not have most of the power. They may have the RESPONSIBILITY for their own health, but not power in the doc-patient relationship. Those are two different, related perhaps, but different subjects. The relationship is btw a person and another essentially faceless person. Some docs are more faceless than others. For more on faces, Billy Joel's stranger album is good.
The doc has the power to tell you why you are feeling the way that you are, whether or not that is the real reason. Last check, docs were involved in putting the DSM together and, last check, pts do not get to choose. Docs will say that is because they have the training. True enough, so why can one pt go, over the course of years, to different docs and get diagnosed with different things? Fashions change. Docs have different opinions. Your life hangs in the balance .Docs differ wildly in the meds they will advise the pt to take, and more than a few docs are in the back pockets of the drug co's. (Did I not read that here?) Pt can do all the research in the world and for many docs, if the pt chooses not to take the med they advised them to take, they are non-compliant. Docs can't be non compliant.Pts can be. That the phrase non compliant exists is evidence that the doc has the power. Docs can also say, well if you aren't going to follow my advice, then perhaps we should reconsider the advisability of continuing treatment. This happens quite a bit. Not so much "let's look together at what else you think may work or help." Docs often agree to take on certain patients so long as they agree to participate in the doc's current research study. If the pt agrees, it can be a fast track to treatment (although they may not get what they bargained for).All of this applies to any sort of doc. Docs have been known to become angry with pts who show up in their office with articles printed off the internet suggesting a different approach. maybe you like it. Not all of them do.As far as shrinks go, they have the ultimate power to lock you up. Not saying that they all go around doing this for fun, but that they can do it. "Unless you agree to take medication xyz, i will have no choice but to sign this FORM".
Docs have the privilege of being late even when there is no good excuse. Pts can be late but will be penalized.

The most used defence against sexual abuse of pts is that the pt is fantasizing, or is borderline and "that's what they do". So the dx, reflective of "objective reality" or not, can be a weapon.
I acknowledge that not all allegations will be true. I am talking about the ones which are true.
There are good docs and bad docs. Same with plumbers and mailmen.
Try using your argument in a discussion of students and teachers. Mnay schools like to say these days that the teacher's job is not to fill the kid's head with knowledge but to guide them on their "learning journey". Kind of like advisors, hmm? At the end of the day, the teacher has all the power and the student none. That may be why all these teacher rating/bashing sites have become so popular. The teacher can declare that the kid has a learning disability when often, it is the approach of the teacher that is disabling, or the kid needs a few more months to mature.There are real children with real learning disabilities, and then there are real children being labeled as such when really, something else is going on. Often the disability miraculously disappears in a new setting or with a different teacher.
Some teachers play favorites. They have the power to decide that Johnny goes to the principal but Jamie can stay in the class even when both have committed the same classroom sin. Sometimes the biggest bully in the class is the teacher.
So, while the majority of docs and teachers are well meaning human beings with benign intentions, I do not buy your line about the balance of power.

Roy said...

I guess I'm speaking of the ideal. Many of the docs I know are cut from this mold, more or less. Rating docs, etc, can make it easier for folks to find the ones who espouse similar values.

But, IMO, the days of being passive recipients of "health care" are over.

Call me an idealist.

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about passive recipient? You can kick and scream and argue until you are blue in the face. They can still cart you off.
I bet the docs you know are in the mold which you describe as ideal. That may have something to do with the fact that you are a doc.

Alison Cummins said...


Please, with which of the following statements do you disagree? The question is not whether psychiatrists abuse power, but whether they have it at all.

"The doc has the power to tell you why you are feeling the way that you are, whether or not that is the real reason."

""Hey shrink, you are really stupid" is very different from "Hey patient, you are really stupid". (Even if one is actually really stupid)"

"Last check, docs were involved in putting the DSM together and, last check, pts do not get to choose."

"Pt can do all the research in the world and for many docs, if the pt chooses not to take the med they advised them to take, they are non-compliant. Docs can't be non compliant."

"As far as shrinks go, they have the ultimate power to lock you up. Not saying that they all go around doing this for fun, but that they can do it."

"Docs have the privilege of being late... . Pts can be late but will be penalized."

"The most used defence against sexual abuse of pts is that the pt is fantasizing, or is borderline... . So the dx, reflective of "objective reality" or not, can be a weapon. ... Not all allegations will be true. I am talking about the ones which are true."

Do you really believe that only evil psychiatrists make diagnoses, and that in your circles patients get to choose and even invent the diagnoses they would like to have? That the diagnosis preferred or invented by the patient is the one that carries most weight in their chart?

Do you really believe that if a well-intentioned psychiatrist says that their patient is borderline and not to be believed, that everyone will automatically ignore the psychiatrist? That only a malicious psychiatrist would be believed in this scenario? No? In this case, it's actually the well-liked and respected psychiatrist who has more power to discredit the patient. I am not saying that the patient is not lying or not fantasising... I am saying that the psychiatrist has the power to discredit her if she is. (Coincidentally, also if she isn't.)

The question isn't even about whether psychiatrists should have these powers. (They probably should.) But when psychiatrists refuse to acknowledge that they have them, their patients can be sorely disappointed and even afraid.

Anonymous said...

Oh gosh.
This just isn't psychiatry.

Alison Cummins said...


I'm not sure what you mean, and I would really like you to explain. (Really. I don't hate you, and I do want to understand.)

It may not be psychiatry as practiced by the psychiatrist, but it is clearly psychiatry as experienced by at least some patients. I'm not sure why you would want to deny the reality of our experience. Perhaps it's just 'optics' as we say in the business world, but in the business world we treat 'optics' as real.

Anonymous said...

The mentally ill are not allowed be anything more but "passive recepients" in their psychiatric treatment. IMO, thats why so many people become so disgruntled with psychiatry. When the patient says "look, this treatment is not doing me any good or all I have to show for it is all these nasty side effects or I want to try a different treatment" they're labeled difficult and non-compiliant (terms btw that have far reaching implications). The MI are not considered people who are capable to make good judgements. Who they are as individuals has no role in psychiarty. Only the symptoms are relevant (as illistrated brillantly in Roy's blog on "Psych Notes for Smilies"). The patient really is no more than a disorder. Which btw goes completly against what the general population believes psychiatry is all about. Until psychiatry and society take a look at this, the patient has to be a passive recepitent or pay the consquences. IMO, I believe psychiatry likes the myths society has about them being the all caring and understanding doctor. Most people do not know the role of the psychiartist is basically be the dispenser of medications. That they spend no more than a few minutes with someone and base all their data on that very limited information. Maybe a psychiatrist should schedule one one hour appointment with his patients one time a year and get to know who the patient is. Find out who they are as individuals how the patient feels about there treatment plan is going. Maybe things are different than they were on the inital visit. Who knows maybe they would find these patients may not be non-complaint and difficult but have valid reasons why they do the things they do. Maybe then the issue of blogging about a psychiartist my change from one of dred to a welcomed event.

Alison Cummins said...

"The MI are not considered people who are capable to make good judgements."

Often not even by themselves. I know I have felt unhappy in certain situations and assumed the problem was mine. I knew my perceptions were distorted by my limited perspective. I therefore belived that it was my job to accept what my therapist was presenting me with as pertinent. That if I liked the truth that I wouldn't be mentally ill in the first place, so my being dissatisfied with my therapist's priorities was probably proof that I should work to embrace them.

Maybe a good therapist would have picked up on this and worked on improving my confidence in my own judgement. My current therapist does, and I think I work well with her. But not all therapists do. Some become defensive.

I'm asking the three shrinks not to become defensive. The issue of the reliablity of the patient may be only peripherally relevant to the psychiatrist, but may be central to the experience of the patient. I'm not trying to attack anyone here. I'm trying to be heard.

Please don't be defensive: I'm not accusing the bloggers of automatically dismissing all patient comments. I'm saying that it's not constructive to say "a speaker's status as a mental patient never has any bearing on their ability to make themselves heard" and leave it at that. It's more complex than that.

I'm saying that just because someone appears hostile, that doesn't mean they are wrong. (For what it's worth, I don't think the three shrinks appear hostile.)

Anonymous said...

For whom is it not psychiatry Dinah? IT IS the experience of psychiatry for a good lot of people. It probably isn't the shrink's experience. Lucky vous.
Alison, I have been quoted extensively before, but never in such a forum as this. Don't expect any actual answers to the question though.

Sarebear said...

"That may have something to do with the fact that you are a doc."

That's like saying all fruit tastes sweet.

"The mentally ill are not allowed be anything more but "passive recepients" in their psychiatric treatment. IMO, thats why so many people become so disgruntled with psychiatry. When the patient says "look, this treatment is not doing me any good or all I have to show for it is all these nasty side effects or I want to try a different treatment" they're labeled difficult and non-compiliant (terms btw that have far reaching implications)."

I'm going to take a risk and say I have experience with BOTH sides of that coin with my first iatrist, and when I felt dismissed, judged, and labeled for questioning something in the treatment plan, and for reporting side effects that went contrary to his view, at the next appointment I brought up that I felt he had sidelined me in what I felt was the inherent partnership of our relationship; I acknowledged that he was the expert, the one with the medical degree, and that I wasn't questioning THAT or his competence, knowledge, or ability (not that I had done anything to imply so, but I figured in the interests of clarity and laying out where I was coming from). He, in return, apologized for his dismissive, labeling, and rude treatment of me previously in regards to the stuff in question. He also said that he'd had alot of patients leave him holding the bag when it came to not paying their bills, and he'd been stressed by that, as well as rather pessimistic about patients' motives. We then proceeded to have actually one of the best discussions we ever had.

Actually, I think this interaction highlights what I think was an appropriate disclosure about the doc; it humanized him, for one thing, and he acknowledged when I said I was worried if he could work WITH me as I was completely interested in and focused on reporting whatever came up with the meds, in order to bring him the info HE NEEDED to best help me, he acknowledged and understood my fear that he was too arrogant to be able to listen to what the patient was saying as information helpful for the assessment of treatment, my fear that he'd take everything too personally as being about HIM (and it wasn't, unless and until I felt something about HIM was interfering with our ability to work together), my fear that that was too much of an interference between us for the doctor-patient relationship to continue.

I don't say all this to convince anonymous, or anyone, that working on and in a partnership with one's doc is possible. I don't say it to illustrate that it's NOT possible, either (although after several more flashes/incidents of working well together, there ended up being too much, for too long, that was more harmful than good.)

I say it to show that even people like me, who are very fearful, who have impaired judgement at times, who have had many reasons to question their own instinct, their own thoughts and feelings about taking a risk and putting forth and saying, Hey, I think there's a problem in our working relationship, or, Hey, what did you mean when you said x, y, and z, regarding what I said or was asking about the med, treatment plan, this aspect of therapy, or what have you? Because I'm concerned that you MAY have meant e, f, and g, and I'm worried about that.

I'm proud of how much I did in that relationship, and WHAT I did to work on things, what I did to bring everything I could think of to that office in the way of relating experience, effects, feelings, etc. in order to give him the information that I felt needed to be heard so that I could have confidence that his decisions were based on what was actually going on; that if he made a treatment decision, I had done my part to provide the best basis for that decision.

Now, as to whether or not he saw what I was experiencing and relating to him as having any import, weight, usefelness, validity, value, or applicability . . . well, that was out of my hands, although as you've seen a patient can take SOME steps towards helping the doc be receptive to what you have to say (that, though, that I had to do SO much of that, SO often, was one of a plethora of reasons that added up to too little from him, in the way of basic human respect. Which is why I have no respect for him, because I went above and beyond the pale, as far as going out of my way to demonstrate my esteem and regard for the doctor side of a doctor/patient relationship, I gave him every chance and more to return that respect, but the little that was coaxed out of him on occasion, was not lasting.)

Sorry to go on so long. I like to think that there are many other professionals out there, who, hearing what I had to say about my respect for their role in our interactions/relationship/my treatment/working together, would have taken it more to heart, accepted my sincerity, really LISTENED to me as a person, and gone on to have a great and lasting, though human and imperfect, doctor/patient relationship.

Anyway. Some doctors suck. Many don't. Some people are having a bad day, week, or month or whatnot. Some may not ever see the patient as a partner in that patient's own treatment plan; you will never know until you try, and it's in the trying, that you learn alot about yourself, as well as discover, over a period of time and experiences, whether that doc is a good long-term choice or not.

If I can do it . . . (recognizing there are times I am too impaired though, but I keep on, the other times.)

Oh, and I'm not upset at the three shrinks or anybody, and appreciate lively and interactive discussion. Still, with the new posting by Dinah re: these threads, this is probably a dead subject. But I felt I had value to add.

DrivingMissMolly said...

Heck, I didn't know my OWN DX for 16 years. No one would put up with that in cardiology.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.