A new legislative proposal may make doctors less likely to tell mesothelioma patients on alternative treatment options.
And if that is enough of a roadblock, it can make the path to a diagnosis of mesothelioma even longer and more complicated than it already is.
draft Republican sponsored bill is to amend the law that dictates how physicians make recommendations. Currently, physicians should tell patients about viable diagnostic tests that may be appropriate for their symptoms. Likewise, they must also tell them about treatment options ?? traditional or alternative.
If the change is made official, doctors would not be required to disclose tests for conditions they do not really believe the patient, they would not have to mention alternative options.
For patients with mesothelioma, it could bog down a diagnostic and treatment process already difficult.
Most patients present with cough and chest pain, and their first instinct is rarely doctor mesothelioma. Consequently, doctors run tests for the most common problems, such as pneumonia. It is often not until several months on the line they move to the advanced test which can detect cancer.
If the law is adopted, it could create an environment that encourages doctors to hold off on more advanced tests until they strongly suspect the presence of a serious illness. The consequences are serious for mesothelioma patients because they tend to receive less-than-favorable diagnosis when they are diagnosed later in the disease progression.
Under the same law, physicians would be responsible to say that patients with an official diagnosis on treatment as "reasonable" offer physician in the circumstances. Theoretically, these "reasonable" treatment would include three main traditional treatment options (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery), with other additional options to come much less frequently.
Many traditionalists in the medical community support the bill. They feel like the doctors currently overloaded patients with information that really are not applicable just to prevent malpractice. They also believe that it would help patients to avoid spending unnecessary money on treatments that do not actually would help.
But when lives are on the line, is really acceptable health information retention?
Possible Implications for mesothelioma patients
It is hard enough for mesothelioma patients to get accurate and evidence-based information on complementary therapies. This new law appears as it would only make it harder.
In my last article, I referred to a study which identified the physician as the No. 1 source of alternative medicine information to patients. (Friends and internet sources were finalists.) However, other studies show that traditional doctors are already reluctant to initiate alternative treatment conversation. In most cases patients are ones to broach the subject with their health care providers.
If this law still discourages oncologists say mesothelioma patients about their alternative options, it is easy to imagine that the participation rate would decline. Patients might never learn about therapies like Jyustu Jin Shin, who collectively brought a measurable relief for cancer patients. And eliminating the most reliable source of information, unguided patients can turn to potentially harmful "quack remedies."
Perhaps more frustrating, the bill also removes the freedom of choice of the patient.
"the consumer since knowledge is a good thing," said Dana Wachs, a state representative who opposes the bill. "You make decisions about your own body ?? [the bill] puts too much control in the hands of doctors. "
Our Wall of Hope tells the stories of dozens of mesothelioma patients whose doctors told them to go home and get their affairs in order. Months, years or even decades later they are now survivors share their stories with us, often through alternative remedies they pursued their own accord.
Although patients are wise to listen to the expertise of their health care team, they are the only ones who should make the final decision on which treatment is "reasonable" for them. supporters of the bill say it would keep patients to get confused by the information they really do not want to know ?? but, other than the patient, can really decide what resources and are not useful?
This is 2013. We're always looking for a mesothelioma cure. what we need now are more options and more physician engagement. Do not let the legislative progress of movement in the other direction.
To express your opinion on this bill, please contact Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon and Senator Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend ?? The sponsors of the bill.
