Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

We’ve Got To Do Something, Even If It Doesn’t Work

This approach to patient care is based on the belief that doing something, anything, with the right intentions, will only have 2 possible out comes. Either the intervention will help or the intervention will have no effect. Proponents of this approach act as if good intentions will prevent adverse events.

Why?

Wishful thinking.

The intent of the person delivering the treatment does not matter. We have all had patients die.

Maybe we did not try enough to make them live.

It was not because we treated them with bad intent. If that were the case, why do unpleasant, undesirable patients seem to do so well? If intent were to have any effect, the survival of these patients would be alarmingly rare. But that is not the case.

The intent is not relevant. The treatment, the seriousness of the injury/illness, the underlying health of the patient, . . . . These are the things that matter in the outcome of the patient.

But the person providing treatment has to want what is best for the patient.

We should want all people providing patient care to want what is best for the patient’s health. Wanting what is best for the patient’s health should be a given. If wanting what is best for the patient’s health is taken for granted, then all patients should have good outcomes. But that is not the case.

The desire to help patients should encourage us to find out what actually works.

How can we say that we want what is best for the patient, if we do not perform a good assessment?

How can we say that we want what is best for the patient, if we are not prepared with an understanding of the available treatments (their possible benefits, possible harms, possible interactions, . . . )?

How can we say that we want what is best for the patient, if we are not maintaining our skills?

How can we say that we want what is best for the patient, if we are not properly equipped?

How can we say that we want what is best for the patient, if we provide traditional treatments, just because we want them to work?

Treating patients with something, anything, is the opposite of looking for things that actually work. This is an excuse for being unprepared to treat patients.

This is a desperate approach to ignorance.

This is harmful to patients.

This is illogical.

This discourages improvements in treatment.

How can anyone encourage this sadistic treatment of patients?

Ignorance.

They are more interested in defending their ignorance, than in defending their patients.

This is evil.

When you hear somebody say, We’ve Got To Do Something, Even If It Doesn’t Work, you need to protect the patient from that person. That speaker is very dangerous.

That speaker is the enemy of your patient.

.

Trackbacks

  1. […] to outperform wishful thinking. Even when studied by people who are proponents of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not an alternative to real […]