Posts by Kate Collins67

Susan Rodriguez4 said:It's clear we see our profession through completely different lenses.
I've been working with patients every single day for 15 years, and my philosophy hasn't changed: as a doctor, my duty is to provide the diagnosis, explain the treatment options, and lay out the expected outcomes for each path. After that, the patient has every right to decide which direction they want to take.
My role is to provide the expertise; the patient makes the choice regarding their own health.
That’s how I’ve practiced for 15 years, and that’s how I’ll practice for the rest of my career.
I know plenty of colleagues who operate this way—people with massive experience and deep knowledge who stay calm, collected, and never burn out.
And their patients are thrilled...
For those of us treating actual human beings rather than just managing symptoms, seeing satisfied patients makes all the stress worth it. That's just being human.
And honestly, a smile costs absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
I would never dream of labeling someone as "unintelligent" just because they don't grasp something outside their field of expertise. By that logic, you'd be considered "unintelligent" by a lawyer because you don't understand legal jargon... at least according to lawyers with your mindset.
Also, categorizing doctors into "grumpy experts" versus "nice amateurs" is frankly ridiculous.
Being kind is about being a decent, cultured person. It has zero correlation with clinical knowledge; it's strictly about how you carry yourself.

I couldn't agree more.

Casey Palmer5 said:I’ve always preferred working with test tubes over dealing with people. Then, somehow, I ended up actually having to work with people. Now? I’d give anything to go back to the lab life... But it feels like it's too late to pivot now, so you really only have two choices: you either change your mindset, adapt to the chaos, and just swallow your frustration every once in a while, or you make a clean break and find a new job—or even a whole new career. Whatever you do, patients shouldn't be the ones feeling your personal dissatisfaction. If you're in the private sector, that kind of attitude will sink you fast. And in much of the European Union where everyone wants to act like they're special, you basically have to stay as chill as can be... Honestly, the opportunities in biomedicine are huge. At the very least, you could always move into pharma sales, where your clients are actually your former colleagues.

Look, if we were talking about moving into private healthcare, I’d have plenty of reasons to laugh, and the patient would have plenty of reasons to cry. But since we’re stuck in this socialized model, our relationships are just built that way.🙂

Look, I never said that being polite means you're clueless—or that being rude means you're an expert. All I’m saying is, if I’m forced to choose between a friendly person who has no idea what they’re doing and a blunt person who actually knows their stuff? I’ll take the expert every single time.
The real point here is that actual competence matters way more than how much a provider smiles at a patient—even if everyone here keeps trying to frame it differently. Being personable is a nice little bonus, sure, but let’s be real: if the medical knowledge isn't there, all the charm and friendliness in the world isn't going to do a damn thing for a patient in trouble.

@ Jacob Fox6

Don't let them spin you around—stick to the conclusions you've reached on your own skin, and then maybe you'll actually be a real doctor. Anyone can talk a big game, but when you're finally standing there in the thick of it, the decision is always going to land squarely on your shoulders. Keep your eyes wide open and don't let them screw you over.
Just do the medical side of the job properly; nobody gets sanctioned for being unlikable.

P.S. If you have no clue what you're doing, at least try to be charming.

swiftbear86 said:It’s the same story in pretty much every field of science...
But when you're talking about health, patients get a lot more sensitive.
They want answers that are crystal clear and easy to wrap their heads around.
They expect fast, accessible care.
And they want a staff that's actually friendly and helpful.
Ideally, they'd like at least two different doctors to tell them the exact same thing about their diagnosis.
On top of that, people often aren't ready to make the lifestyle sacrifices that coming down with an illness requires.
Kudos to those who actually listen to their doctors and pharmacists and follow the plan.

But let's be real: the system as a whole is broken, and people have every right to be frustrated.☕

You know how this goes—things have to hit rock bottom before they can actually start looking up. If we’re ever going to get our act together and truly get back on our feet, there’s going to be some serious sacrifice involved. It doesn't even matter who’s actually at fault here; that's almost beside the point. The reality is that most people just aren't willing to make those kinds of sacrifices. They want the results without the cost, and frankly, that's why we're stuck.

Carol Scott98 said:I would definitely be looking for some medical advice or at least asking a pharmacist what the move is🤷

And you’d probably just get the standard line—"buy a new bottle and toss the old one"—because that's the official, textbook answer they're trained to give.

Look, I’ve never actually poisoned myself with an expired med, but let’s be real: once the expiration date passes, isn't the main question whether it even works anymore?

What I mean is, if I’ve got some old Tylenol sitting in my cabinet and my head is absolutely pounding—and I don't feel like trekking out to CVS in the middle of the night—I’m probably just going to swallow it and deal with whatever happens (unless, you know, there's actual mold growing in the bottle).

swiftbear86 said:At the end of the day, patients need to understand at least a little bit of what's going on. It’s crucial for a doctor to explain a diagnosis in plain English. Otherwise, people start looking for answers in all the wrong places, and they begin questioning whether their doctor actually knows what they're doing.
I think the most important thing is just being a decent human being and treating patients with kindness. Honestly, that alone would prevent half the misunderstandings and heated arguments we see.
The biggest mistake I see is when patients aren't properly briefed on how serious their condition is or what the consequences might be. Because of that, they don't take it seriously enough and end up being inconsistent with their treatment.
Then they start hunting for a second or third opinion, which often leads to conflicting advice...
And by then, they're even more lost than when they started.
It goes for primary care doctors too...
And honestly, following every single recommendation from a specialist? That’s an art form in itself.😢

As far as opinions go: that’s just how medicine works. Everyone is operating based on their own limited slice of knowledge and whatever specific experience they happen to have under their belt.

jadesailor14 said:I have a bit of a grievance here, though I’m honestly not sure if typing it out will actually change anything

The issue is that certain specialists love to drop that classic line, "Go consult your primary physician," but I have absolutely no clue who they're talking about. It’s not because I’m being lazy or difficult—it’s just that the specialist didn't bother finishing their job in the first place, so why should I go hunting for someone else?

Look, I get that not every patient is a saint, but let's be real: plenty of doctors aren't exactly sunshine and rainbows either!

Look, let me give you a little insight into how this whole system actually works.
A specialist sends you back to your GP because they suspect something—let's say, a pre-heart attack condition.
Then you go get the tests done, and what happens? The results completely contradict the initial diagnosis.
Under the way our current healthcare setup is structured, any follow-up testing just loops right back to that primary doctor (unless, of course, the quick screening catches something life-threatening that needs immediate ER attention), and then that doctor has to send you off to a second or third specialist just to see if *they* agree.

It’s far from an ideal solution, but hey, that's the reality of how things operate right now.
At the end of the day, a general practitioner should be able to interpret a specialist's findings without all this jumping through hoops.

jadesailor14 said:And honestly, what does a diagnosis on a piece of paper actually accomplish?
What is a patient supposed to do with it?
They already know they feel terrible; now they just have a fancy name for that "terrible" feeling... so what's next?

Well, you follow the instructions written on that very same piece of paper, obviously.🙂
If it says contact your primary care physician, then you call them, and they’re the ones responsible for telling you what happens next. If it says go see a specialist at a diabetes clinic, then you head there, let them decide the course of action, and if it says see a surgeon, you do that. If it tells you to take specific medications in a certain way, then you either do exactly what it says or—if you're consulting with another doctor—you adjust based on that. It's not rocket science.

Basically, if you actually follow the protocol laid out in front of you, you should get exactly what you went in for in the first place. Sure, you might not understand all the technical jargon or the "why" behind everything, but if you stick to the plan, it shouldn't change your ultimate outcome.

jadesailor14 said:And honestly, what does a diagnosis on a piece of paper actually accomplish?
What is a patient supposed to do with it?
They already know they feel terrible; now they just have a fancy name for that "terrible" feeling... so what's next?

Look, I didn't say anything specific, but she basically framed it as if simply slapping a diagnosis on someone and starting treatment is enough to make a doctor "likable" to the patient. So my question is simple: was the diagnosis for this kid actually written down or wasn't it?
If it was, then I don't get why she's getting so worked up about it. If it wasn't, then I don't get why she isn't—I mean, it's standard practice to include a diagnosis in a medical report, isn't it? At least in my experience, whether it's a working diagnosis or a final one, you don't just leave it blank.

Angela Wright said:🤣
It’s exactly regarding that first point that people start judging whether someone is a saint or a scoundrel.

I've always had this nagging thought that those "jerks" who actually possess real healing skills basically fall into the same category as snake oil salesmen or some kind of voodoo practitioners.

I'm curious about that woman you mentioned during the hallway scene—did she actually write down a formal diagnosis on the discharge papers or some kind of medical report? Because if she didn't, I'm really struggling to wrap my head around the point you're trying to make here.

Look, you’ve got those absolute "idiots" out there who won't even look you in the eye—or better yet, they'll say something so incredibly condescending to your face that you actually wish they’d just stayed silent—but at least they know how to do their jobs and will eventually fix your issue.

Then you have those "total jerks" who are impossible to track down—the kind who might just rip you a new one right there in the hallway—but if you actually manage to corner them, they’ll get the job done....

Look, speaking both as a doctor and occasionally as a patient myself, my bottom line is simple: when I need a diagnosis or a treatment plan, I want it fast. Period. Does it actually matter if the person providing that care is a total jerk or a literal saint? Honestly, not really. That’s why I find myself nodding along with what Jason Howard9 wrote here.

To put it more bluntly—and maybe I should have phrased it this way from the jump—I’d much rather deal with an absolute moron who actually gives me the medicine I need than some saintly soul who leaves me six feet under because they were too busy being "nice" to be effective.

@ Jacob Fox6

What happened in the hallway was nothing compared to what's coming—it was just a drop in the bucket. Just wait until you're done with your fax machine🙂
Pretty soon you'll be over here on our side, and then we can stand shoulder to shoulder and defend our positions together.👍

Since we’re already going down this rabbit hole about rights versus responsibilities, what do you think about Article 69 of the Constitution:
....
Every individual is obligated, within the scope of their authority and activities, to devote special care to the protection of human health, nature, and the human environment.

By that logic—if we’re being literal—it’s a patient's duty to quit smoking, it’s their duty to stay sober, it’s their duty to lose weight, and so on and so forth...

The thing is, you all seem to have a massive list of obligations, yet you barely bother to fulfill any of them—but suddenly, you become incredibly vocal the second someone mentions your "rights."

Susan Rodriguez4 said:1. That is absolutely wrong. That mindset treats patients like machines rather than human beings. You, of all people, should know that in medicine, 2 plus 2 doesn't always equal 4 like it does in mechanics. Yes, protocols exist, but every human being is a unique organism that reacts differently to the same set of rules. Standardized medicine doesn't ignore individuality; it just provides guidelines for treatment, not guaranteed reactions. But actually providing an individualized approach takes a hell of a lot more knowledge.
And if you have a patient who isn't responding to the standard protocol (which happens about 90% of the time), how exactly are you supposed to just "pick up where someone else left off"?

2. I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that every tumor, heart attack, or case of gangrene is attached to a person with hands, legs, and a head. People forget that far too often. And that person's head has every right to know exactly what happened to their hand, leg, heart, or brain.

3. YOU ARE NOT GOD!!!!!!! It is not your job to decide who is smart enough or too dim to grasp your high-and-mighty lectures filled with a million Latin terms (the idea that medicine can't be "translated" into plain English for laypeople is total bullshit). Your job is to tell the patient the what, the why, and the how. Every patient has the RIGHT to listen or not. They have the choice; you don't..

So, what I’m trying to get at here is—does a backup protocol actually exist if the first one falls through? Or better yet, is there some kind of third, fail-safe protocol waiting in the wings if the second one fails too? I mean, seriously, how is this even structured?
In some perfect, utopian fantasy world, "personalized medicine" supposedly leads to better patient outcomes. But let’s get real for a second—in the actual, messy world we live in? It’s nothing more than a convenient smokescreen used to mask incompetence and sheer ignorance. It’s the ultimate loophole, isn't it? If you follow standard protocols and screw up, there’s a paper trail and accountability. But if you decide to just wing it because you want to be "individualized," suddenly you have the perfect excuse ready to go. When things inevitably go south, what’s the defense? "Oh, I wasn't being careless; I was simply tailoring my approach to this specific patient's unique needs!" It gives anyone the freedom to do whatever they feel like without any oversight or control. How can you regulate someone when they can hide behind the vague label of "personalization" every time they make a mistake? It’s a total disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm not some kind of god—I guess I must have been acting pretty high and mighty somewhere along the line if you felt the need to take me down a notch... clearly, I needed the reality check.

I don't even need to sit here and play judge regarding who’s got enough sense and who doesn't—I can tell the second I start talking to them. Honestly, I have to wonder... do you actually work with people in the real world, or are you just sitting there putting them on this ridiculous pedestal?

If I’m remembering correctly, the maximum daily dose for acetaminophen is 4 grams—so that’s basically eight 500 mg Tylenol tablets. As for those expired ones? Honestly, I figure that just means they might not hit quite as hard as when they were fresh off the shelf.

I know there are always weird exceptions to these things, but this is the standard rule most people follow, right? If anyone actually knows something different, please, feel free to set me straight.

@ ruggedscout91
When you're dealing with the kind of situations we're talking about here, you really need psychological support—the kind typically provided by a psychologist or a psychotherapist. Sure, some psychiatrists might dabble in psychotherapy, but let’s be real, that's primarily the domain of psychologists.
Psychiatrists focus on clinical "illnesses," whereas psychologists deal more with various types of disorders that aren't necessarily quite as severe—situations where the patient actually maintains some level of self-awareness and insight.
The problem is, our healthcare system is severely lacking in psychologists, so even for that kind of help, you're still going to have to shell out some serious cash.

@ Lisbeth
So, what exactly is it that you do for a living?

Raymond Price4 said:1. A "healthy patient" is an oxymoron; if they're a patient, they're sick.
2. Sure, you treat the patient—the patient is the subject. The goal is to get a sick person better or improve their condition. It should be obvious to any doctor that you aren't just looking at a failing organ in isolation; you're looking at the person attached to it. The human being matters, and they actually care about being healthy—they aren't just a collection of parts.
3. Your whole tangent about social services is totally irrelevant. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

I honestly find it pretty sad to see a young, educated professional write something like this, reducing the medical profession to a kind of narrow-minded tunnel vision that lacks any sense of humanity.

Ah... what can I even say? Honestly, nothing. I just deleted a post that was half a page long because I’m just not in the mood to play philosopher today. I care about practical realities, so I'll leave this philosophical debate entirely up to you.