Article

Care

Comment

21 June 2023

5 min read

The healing touch in an era of personalised medicine

As data powers a revolution in personalised medicine, surgeon David Cranston asks if we are risk of dehumanising medicine?

David Cranston

David Cranston is emeritus Professor of Surgery at Oxford University. As well as publishing academically, he has has also authored books on John Radcliffe, and mentoring.

A doctor looks thoughtful will holding a stethoscope to their ears.

Photo by Nappy on Unsplash.

In 1877 Arthur Conan Doyle was sitting in one of Dr Joseph Bell’s outpatient clinics in Edinburgh as a medical student, when a lady came in with a child, carrying a small coat. Dr Bell asked her how the crossing of the Firth of Forth had been on the ferry that morning. Looking sightly askance she replied;

“Fine thank you sir.”

He then went on to ask what she had done with her younger child who came with her.

Looking more astonished she said:

“I left him with my aunt who lives in Edinburgh.

Bell goes on to ask if she walked through the Botanic Gardens on the way to his clinic and if she still worked in the Linoleum factory and to both these questions she answered in the affirmative.

Turning to the students he explained

“I could tell from her accent that she came from across the Firth of Forth and the only way across is by the ferry. You noticed that she was carrying a coat which was obviously too small for the child she had with her, which suggested she had another younger child and had left him somewhere. The only place when you see the red mud that she has on her boots is in the Botanic Gardens and the skin rash on her hands is typical of workers in the Linoleum factory.

It was this study of the diagnostic methods of Dr Joseph Bell led Conan Doyle to create the character of Sherlock Holmes.

A hundred years later and I was young doctor. In 1977 there were no CT or MRI scanners. We were taught the importance of taking a detailed history and examination. Including the social history. We would recognise the RAF tie and the silver (silk producing) caterpillar badge on the lapel of a patient jacket. We would ask him when he joined the caterpillar club and how many times he had had to bail out of his plane when he was shot down during the war – a life saved by a silk parachute. We would notice the North Devon accent in a lady and ask when she moved to Oxford.

The patient’s history gave 70% of the diagnosis, examination another 20% and investigation the final 10%. Patients came with symptoms and the doctor made a presumptive diagnosis – often correct - which was confirmed by the investigations. Screening for disease in patients with no symptoms was in its infancy and diseases were diagnosed by talking to the patients and eliciting a clear history and doing a meticulous examination. No longer is that the case.

At the close of my career, as a renal cancer surgeon, most people came in with a diagnosis already made on the basis of a CT scan, and often small kidney cancers were picked up incidentally with no symptoms. The time spent talking to patients was reduced. On one hand it means more patients can be seen but on the other the personal contact and empathy can be lost.

Patients lying in in bed have sometimes been ignored. The consultant and the team standing around the foot of the patient’s bed discussing their cases amongst themselves. Or, once off the ward, speaking of the thyroid cancer in bed three or the colon cancer in bed two. Yet patients are people too with histories behind them and woe betide the medic, or indeed the government, who forgets that.

With computer aided diagnosis, electronic patient records and more sophisticated investigation the patient can easily become even more remote. An object rather than a person.

We speak today of more personalised medicine with every person having tailored treatment of the basis of whole genome sequencing and knowing each individual’s make up. But we need to be sure that this does not lead to less personalised medicine by forgetting the whole person, body mind and spirit.

Post Covid, more consultations are done online or over the telephone -often with a doctor you do not know and have never met. Technology has tended to increase the distance between the doctor and patient. The mechanisation of scientific medicine is here to stay, but the patient may well feel that the doctor is more interested in her disease than in herself as a person. History taking and examination is less important in terms of diagnosis and remote medicine means that personal contact including examination and touch are removed.

Touching has always been an important part of healing. Sir Peter Medawar, who won the Nobel prize for medicine sums it up well. He asks:

‘What did doctors do with those many infections whose progress was rapid and whose outcome was usually lethal?

He replies:

'For one thing, they practised a little magic, dancing around the bedside, making smoke, chanting incomprehensibilities and touching the patient everywhere.? This touching was the real professional secret, never acknowledged as the central essential skill.'

Touch has been rated as the oldest and most effective act of healing.

Touch can reduce pain, anxiety, and depression, and there are occasions when one can communicate far more through touch than in words, for there are times when no words are good enough or holy enough to minister to someone’s pain.

Yet today touching any patient without clear permission can make people ill at ease and mistrustful and risk justified accusation. It is a tightrope many have to walk very carefully. In an age of whole-person care it is imperative that the right balance be struck. There’s an ancient story that illustrates the power of that human connection in the healing process.

When a leper approached Jesus in desperation, Jesus did not simply offer a healing word from safe distance. he stretched out his hand and touched him. He felt deeply for lepers cut off from all human contact. He touched the untouchables.

William Osler a Canadian physician who was one of the founding fathers of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and ended up as Regius Professor of Medicine in Oxford, said:

“It is more important to know about the patient who has the disease than the disease that has the patient”.

For all the advantages modern medicine has to offer, it is vital to find ways to retain that personal element of medicine. Patients are people too.

Article

Assisted dying

Care

Creed

Death & life

19 November 2024

5 min read

“Shortening death” sidesteps the real battle

We need to do more than protest bad deaths, we need to protest death itself, it's more than biological.

Tom Dove

Tom is a physician and completing a theology doctorate.

A hand drapes over the side of an object out of shot.

Michael Schaffler on Unsplash.

What is “death”? It’s surprising the term has received little attention in the assisted dying discussion so far, because more hangs on the answer than one might expect. At a press briefing, Kim Leadbeater MP stated that the assisted dying bill she is proposing is about “shortening death, not ending life.”

But what meaning does “death” have here?

The current bill defines neither “death” nor “dying.” Granted, it implies a biological definition. The bill speaks of administering approved substances to “cause that person’s death” and of capacity and decision-making around “ending life.” These fit the understanding of death with which the medical profession operates—death is the point in time when the combined functions required for human life cease. It is a one-time event, the end of physiology, and so is recognised by a combination of physical signs.

Death, then, is a diagnosis.

So, too, “dying”—though here the waters are murkier. Setting aside sudden deaths, medical talk of dying takes us out of binary territory. Dying speaks of a process, of the “terminal phase.” Within medicine a diagnosis of dying heralds the expectation that a person’s death will occur within hours or days. And so, the focus shifts. The task of care is no longer the coordinated work of investigation, preserving life, and treating symptoms. Now attention is on bringing relief to the process of dying.

The bill seems wise to much of this. Though definitions of death and dying are absent, the bill does define terminal illness—“an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment” and from which the event of death “can reasonably be expected within 6 months.” And so, it clearly distinguishes terminal illness from biological death and, implicitly, from dying.

Of course, terminal illness and biological death are related. Terminal illness is irreversible, and where terminal illness leads is death. Or, you might say, it leads to the end of life. Apart from the timescale of six months, the same may be said of ageing: ageing is irreversible, and where ageing leads is death. This is why Kim Leadbeater’s comment was puzzling to me. I suspect what she really meant was “shortening terminal illness.” If so, this is confusing because, within the framework of the bill, “shortening terminal illness” and “ending life” are identical. It seems she was getting at something else.

“It seems odd that in the name of eliminating suffering, we eliminate the sufferer.”

Stanley Hauerwas

I suspect Kim Leadbeater was echoing a conviction at home in the Christian faith. That is, try as we might to keep death at a distance and restrict it to a faraway frontier, the life of human beings involves death. I don’t simply mean the biological death we witness—the deaths of friends, relatives, or even strangers. I mean death intrudes upon the way we experience life. Death is more than simply biological.

The fear of death belongs in this category. For some, the impending loss of relationships and joys casts a shadow over life, giving birth to apprehension. Death is not simply a factual matter but something that exerts power and influence. Or take disease and illness. Built into the notion of terminal illness is the idea that the sickness borne by a human body will ultimately bring about that body’s death. That body already speaks of its death. Death is making itself felt in advance.

And so, death is more than a biological event. Even living things can bear the marks of death.

This is no novel claim. The creation account recorded in the Bible says that in the beginning, there was good. But an intruder appears. In the wake of humanity’s choice to go its own way rather than the way of its Maker, death arrives on the scene. And death is an imposter—not simply a physiological fact at the end of the road, but a destructive and alien presence in God’s good world.

Understood in this way, death is not something that God intends humans simply submit to. Death is something to protest. This is why Kim Leadbeater’s comment gets at something important: this kind of death should be protested. The marks of death should not be accommodated, because they do not belong to the goodness of what God has made.

At the heart of the Christian faith is God’s own ultimate protest against the force of death. Christians celebrate that God himself came in the man Jesus to “destroy death.” This is plainly more than biological. Jesus came to free humanity from the entirety of death’s grip. Hence why, when Jesus speaks of “eternal life” he means more than endless biological existence. He means liberation from all the havoc that death brings to bear within God’s world. To the Christian imagination, the power of death must be protested because God protested it first.

The question is how to protest death. Within the framework of the bill, shortening death or terminal illness is identical with ending life. This is the only form protesting death can take.

But the Christian faith makes a far more radical claim: God alone overcame death by dying. This is the point: Jesus was the one—the only one—who emerged resurrected victor in the contest with the power of death. In seeing his death and resurrection, an unshakeable hope emerges. Death is not the victor. And this hope stands above our present experience of death—in whatever form—and, at the same time, calls us to join the protest.

Ethicist Stanley Hauerwas once wrote: “it seems odd that in the name of eliminating suffering, we eliminate the sufferer.” I have deliberately avoided discussing suffering, not least because it would take me too far afield. Yet Hauerwas has put his finger on what I’m getting at. Protesting death—in the big sense—belongs to the Christian faith. Protesting suffering and pain, economic and racial injustice, fractured relationships and broken societies, are all part of this protest. But can eliminating those who live within the shadow of death be part of this protest? I think not. The Christian faith believes there is only one who can overcome death in this way, and that is God himself—who has already done it.