You are definitely not supposed to have papers printed out for them. You might refer to a study you read, yes, but bringing print-outs is over the top even if you are a colleague of some sort.
This is the right advise for more unproven or controversial stuff like supplements or certain diets, but it’s the wrong advice for other stuff like medications. For instance, if your doc says that one med (which doesn’t work for you) is just as effective another med that you want to try but that he’s unwilling to prescribe, the only way to change your doc’s mind is to print out and highlight the exact text where his colleagues (especially if they know more about this med than he does) disagree with his opinion.
I agree with your premise but would expect any decent doctor to actually enter a serious discussion with you to find the best med when you say one doesn’t work for you. You are proving from your own experience, and the vast variability in reactions is something well documented in the medical field.
You should not need to bring studies for this and not have to prove via academia. I will maintain that bringing print-outs shifts the interaction from patient-doctor to adversarial peer-review. Many doctors will dig in, not concede.
I don’t think my doctor was bad. I think she was doing her job the way she’s supposed to and that’s kind of the reason why asking her about this issue wasn’t useful and it’s better to discuss these kind of questions with chatbots.
Going in I had a some hope given that NAC, glycine and glutathione are are all textbook substances. Genetic glutathione-synthesis disorders causing recurrent infections is something that mainstream medicine does recognize. Glutathione being important and not some weird body work intervention (of the kind that I think increased my collagen turnover and created the increased glycine usage that left less for glutathione) that interacts with pathways that aren’t in the textbooks.
Your situation sound a bit similar to my adopted son’s situation with G6PD. One of the things I’ve just learned is how non-uniform that condition is. He’s in the Philippines and they actually screen all new born children for it now. No actual treatments for his situation is available. But since frequency of occurrence in much higher in the Philippines than many other places in the world the Philippine medical infrastructure if pretty much on par with any 1st world county for this condition. And the current “treatment” is avoiding the triggers. If you talked with a Philippine doctor it is very likely they will know “current state” knowledge (maybe not cutting edge though). If I were to start asking doctors here in the USA (and I suspect it would be the same in EU) I suspect most will not really know much and possibly nothing at all.
So one thing to think about when “asking my doctor” is should I consider the question “mainstream” or “cutting edge/far tail of some distribution” and why should I think that.
Many docs might dig in, and if they don’t change their attitude and opinion when they should, you’ll just need to switch docs until you find a decent one. The doc I brought the print out to didn’t dig in and prescribed the med I requested after he read it. This had nothing to do with any study; it seemed that it was widely known among experts (the print out quoted expert opinion), but this doc just had the wrong opinion about it. I asked another doc about a combination of meds that’s usually not prescribed often (but probably should be) to younger age groups and the reasoning behind it without showing a print out (but I had one just in case) and he agreed even though it wasn’t standard of care. Sure, advocating for yourself could lead to an adversarial situation, but if you want to avoid mistakes and blind spots that can lead to your condition not improving or even worsening, I don’t see any other alternative.
This is the right advise for more unproven or controversial stuff like supplements or certain diets, but it’s the wrong advice for other stuff like medications. For instance, if your doc says that one med (which doesn’t work for you) is just as effective another med that you want to try but that he’s unwilling to prescribe, the only way to change your doc’s mind is to print out and highlight the exact text where his colleagues (especially if they know more about this med than he does) disagree with his opinion.
I agree with your premise but would expect any decent doctor to actually enter a serious discussion with you to find the best med when you say one doesn’t work for you. You are proving from your own experience, and the vast variability in reactions is something well documented in the medical field.
You should not need to bring studies for this and not have to prove via academia. I will maintain that bringing print-outs shifts the interaction from patient-doctor to adversarial peer-review. Many doctors will dig in, not concede.
I don’t think my doctor was bad. I think she was doing her job the way she’s supposed to and that’s kind of the reason why asking her about this issue wasn’t useful and it’s better to discuss these kind of questions with chatbots.
Going in I had a some hope given that NAC, glycine and glutathione are are all textbook substances. Genetic glutathione-synthesis disorders causing recurrent infections is something that mainstream medicine does recognize. Glutathione being important and not some weird body work intervention (of the kind that I think increased my collagen turnover and created the increased glycine usage that left less for glutathione) that interacts with pathways that aren’t in the textbooks.
Your situation sound a bit similar to my adopted son’s situation with G6PD. One of the things I’ve just learned is how non-uniform that condition is. He’s in the Philippines and they actually screen all new born children for it now. No actual treatments for his situation is available. But since frequency of occurrence in much higher in the Philippines than many other places in the world the Philippine medical infrastructure if pretty much on par with any 1st world county for this condition. And the current “treatment” is avoiding the triggers. If you talked with a Philippine doctor it is very likely they will know “current state” knowledge (maybe not cutting edge though). If I were to start asking doctors here in the USA (and I suspect it would be the same in EU) I suspect most will not really know much and possibly nothing at all.
So one thing to think about when “asking my doctor” is should I consider the question “mainstream” or “cutting edge/far tail of some distribution” and why should I think that.
Many docs might dig in, and if they don’t change their attitude and opinion when they should, you’ll just need to switch docs until you find a decent one. The doc I brought the print out to didn’t dig in and prescribed the med I requested after he read it. This had nothing to do with any study; it seemed that it was widely known among experts (the print out quoted expert opinion), but this doc just had the wrong opinion about it. I asked another doc about a combination of meds that’s usually not prescribed often (but probably should be) to younger age groups and the reasoning behind it without showing a print out (but I had one just in case) and he agreed even though it wasn’t standard of care. Sure, advocating for yourself could lead to an adversarial situation, but if you want to avoid mistakes and blind spots that can lead to your condition not improving or even worsening, I don’t see any other alternative.