My para-previous post mentioned getting second opinions. I think it's a concept worthy of separate rumination; and because I'm not entirely coherent on the subject, I'll be interested to read what I have to say.
So it doesn't get lost in the morass, let me be totally clear: whenever a patient wants a second opinion, for whatever reason, s/he ought to get it, and I'd never ever discourage or disparage it. Being comfortable with whatever medical intervention is at hand is essential, and if the first doctor resists it or gets huffy, well, that's probably confirmation of the need. But it has always bugged me when the reason is a requirement by some insurer or another, or when it's because someone (an agenda-driven talking head; a relative; a BFF) has made the patient feel guilty or inadequate if they don't demand it. It's possible -- and I always made a hell of an effort -- to establish a relationship of trust based on being fully informed, respectfully addressed, and carefully listened to without the need to run off.
At some level, when a patient requested a second opinion I felt like a failure. Drawing diagrams, writing booklets, soliciting questions, I succeeded nearly always. Many is the time my patients told me they'd never had a doctor explain so thoroughly and understandably. So to me -- ever self-critical -- a request for a second opinion said, somewhere in my lizard brain, that I'd not done something well enough. I recognize that many people simply see it as due diligence: taking control of one's health includes exhausting every avenue to information. But in that evanescent and impossible best-of-all-worlds, that fantasyland, I like to think doctors could be good enough, and patients open enough, to justify the idea that one opinion can suffice.
Patients have the right to feel right. They are entitled to full disclosure, to thorough explanations, and to complete answers to all their questions. And people have senses. If they feel uncertain or dissatisfied; if there are warning bells ringing in their heads; if for whatever reason they are left uncomfortable with a physician encounter, they should absolutely positively get another opinion and/or another doctor. But what's wrong with feeling OK in the first instance? If what you hear makes sense, if you think the doctor in front of you is being honest and thorough, must you be made to feel like an idiot for standing pat? Some people show up broadcasting distrust from before the first hello; or bring someone who glares dares from the co-pilot seat. It ices the wings of the encounter before it ever gets off the ground. That attitude comes from giving too much credence to crap. Don't cheat yourself, says I. Don't close the barn door before the horses are in. Or something.
Of course, it's not always simple, and doctors are imperfect. I'll examplify.
There was a time when, because of insurance demands, I saw lots of people in need of second opinions before hernia repair; and had to send them for same, as well. (After looking at a few years of predictable data, most companies have dropped most such requirements.) Usually it's a no-brainer: you can see the hernia as the pants are coming down. But I've had a couple of people in whom, for the life of me, I couldn't confirm the hernia for which they were scheduled to be operated. It's uncomfortable. Often, because the mandated need for a second opinion was realized at the last minute, I'd be seeing the person within a day or so of the operation. In part, it (the non-finding) happens because you can't always feel a hernia, even when it's there. They don't always pop out on command, with office maneuvers. I'd explain that to the patient, and tell them the fact that I can't feel it doesn't mean it's not there.... Unpleasant, mutually. When the patient had symptoms, and described what surely must have been a hernia, I always explained that it was a probably a safe assumption. But sometimes it was a person in whom the "hernia" had been found on a physical exam, and there'd been no signs or symptoms at all. When such a person was sent to me directly from the primary doc, I'd generally recommend against surgery until things were more clear, trying also to avoid any implication that their doc was wrong. But what to do when it's a second opinion referral from a surgeon who had them on the dotted line?
With breast cancer, some aspects of treatment are extremely complex, and changing nearly daily. Along with the good information available, there's lots of bad, sometimes leading to distrust as the default position going in, which makes the job of explaining even harder than it already is. I still get upset when I think of my patient who went for a second opinion and died a couple of years later, very possibly as a result. She had a very large cancer in her breast, and for several important reasons I told her she ought to have mastectomy despite her hope for breast preservation. She accepted what I said and why I said it, but saw another surgeon anyway. A young guy fresh out of training, sure he knew way more than the old guy, he told her she could safely have lumpectomy and radiation. He convinced her, signed her up, and went ahead. As I was sure would happen, he ended up cutting through tumor at all edges of his large lumpectomy, operated again unsuccessfully, and not very much later, operated once more to do a mastectomy. I can't say with certainty she would have been saved if she'd had it at the outset, but cutting through tumor that extensively may well cause direct seeding into the bloodstream, if it hadn't already happened; and three major operations on incompletely treated tumor seems less propitious than having only one.
So there you have it. Second opinions aren't necessary except when they are, and they're good for you except when they aren't. Have a nice day.
