|
|
|
|
|
by t-0
1463 days ago
|
|
I appreciate that you are using exageration to make a point, but it's worth noting for the record that iatrogenicity is hardley the number one cause of modern disease. Having a medical problem is a prerequisite to the chance of iatrogenic harm after all. Furthermore, a patient can suffer from iatrogenic harm even if everything was done correctly, and does not imply that someone didn't "know" something correctly. |
|
The statement is not intended as an attack against the medical professions or the effectiveness of medicine. It is intended as pointing out my observation that, typically, a doctor would list such iatrogenic causes very low on their list of differentials to consider, preferring to consider 'textbook' causes first. However, my own experience (which, is medical, but admittedly "anecdata") is that at present, iatrogenic causes are very relevant, and at least as likely, if not more, to yield a relevant diagnosis compared to textbook stuff in a high proportion of presentations.
A classic example of this is doctors treating symptoms by adding more medication/treatment options, rarely removing medications/treatments that may be causing those symptoms in the first place. Especially if that medication was started by a different specialist. It usually takes several rounds of inconclusive investigations and experimenting with treatments before altering an existing medication is even considered.
At the very least, having a "exclude iatrogenic causes first, before moving on to 'classic' stuff" is a good mindset to have.
> Furthermore, a patient can suffer from iatrogenic harm even if everything was done correctly, and does not imply that someone didn't "know" something correctly.
There's a popular quote often said to medical students when they start: "50% of what we'll be teaching you will have become obsolete or proven wrong by the time you graduate; unfortunately we don't know which 50%.".