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

Culture

Death & life

13 November 2024

8 min read

The deceptive appeal of assisted dying changes medical practice

In Canada the moral ethos of medicine has shifted dramatically.

Ewan Goligher

Ewan is a physician practising in Toronto, Canada.

a doctor consults a tablet against the backdrop of a Canadian flag.

Once again, the UK parliament is set to debate the question of legalizing euthanasia (a traditional term for physician-assisted death). Political conditions appear to be conducive to the legalization of this technological approach to managing death. The case for assisted death appears deceptively simple—it’s about compassion, respect, empowerment, freedom from suffering. Who can oppose such positive goals? Yet, writing from Canada, I can only warn of the ways in which the embrace of physician-assisted death will fundamentally change the practice of medicine. Reflecting on the last 10 years of our experience, two themes stick out to me—pressure, and self-deception.

I still remember quite distinctly the day that it dawned on me that the moral ethos of medicine in Canada was shifting dramatically. Traditionally, respect for the sacredness of the patient’s life and a corresponding absolute prohibition on deliberately causing the death of a patient were widely seen as essential hallmarks of a virtuous physician. Suddenly, in a 180 degree ethical turn, a willingness to intentionally cause the death of a patient was now seen as the hallmark of patient-centered doctor. A willingness to cause the patient’s death was a sign of compassion and even purported self-sacrifice in that one would put the patient’s desires and values ahead of their own. Those of us who continued to insist on the wrongness of deliberately causing death would now be seen as moral outliers, barriers to the well-being and dignity of our patients. We were tolerated to some extent, and mainly out of a sense of collegiality. But we were also a source of slight embarrassment. Nobody really wanted to debate the question with us; the question was settled without debate.

Yet there was no denying the way that pressure was brought to bear, in ways subtle and overt, to participate in the new assisted death regime. We humans are unavoidably moral creatures, and when we come to believe that something is good, we see ourselves and others as having an obligation to support it. We have a hard time accepting those who refuse to join us. Such was the case with assisted death. With the loudest and most strident voices in the Canadian medical profession embracing assisted death as a high and unquestioned moral good, refusal to participate in assisted death could not be fully tolerated.

We deceive ourselves if we think that doctors have fully accepted that euthanasia is ethical when only very few are actually willing to administer it.

Regulators in Ontario and Nova Scotia (two Canadian provinces) stipulated that physicians who were unwilling to perform the death procedure must make an effective referral to a willing “provider”. Although the Supreme Court decision made it clear in their decision to strike down the criminal prohibition against physician-assisted death that no particular physician was under any obligation to provide the procedure, the regulators chose to enforce participation by way of this effective referral requirement. After all, this was the only way to normalize this new practice. Doctors don't ordinarily refuse to refer their patients for medically necessary procedures; if assisted death was understood to be a medically necessary good, then an unwillingness to make such referral could not be tolerated.

And this form of pressure brings us to the pattern of deception. First, it is deceptive to suggest that an effective referral to a willing provider confers no moral culpability on the referring physician for the death of the patient. Those of us who objected to referring the patient were told that like Pilate, we could wash our hands of the patient’s death by passing them along to someone else who had the courage to do the deed. Yet the same regulators clearly prohibited referral for female genital mutilation. They therefore seemed to understand the moral responsibility attached to an effective referral. Such glaring inconsistencies about the moral significance of a referral suggests that when they claimed that a referral avoided culpability for death by euthanasia, they were deceiving themselves and us.

The very need for a referral system signifies another self-deception. Doctors normally make referrals only when an assessment or procedure lies outside their technical expertise. In the case of assisted death, every physician has the requisite technical expertise to cause death. There is nothing at all complicated or difficult or specialized about assessing euthanasia eligibility criteria or the sequential administration of toxic doses of midazolam, propofol, rocuronium, and lidocaine. The fact that the vast majority of physicians are unwilling to perform this procedure entails that moral objection to participation in assisted death remains widespread in the medical profession. The referral mechanism is for physicians who are “uncomfortable” in performing the procedure; they can send the patient to someone else more comfortable. But to be comfortable in this case is to be “morally comfortable”, not “technically comfortable”. We deceive ourselves if we think that doctors have fully accepted that euthanasia is ethical when only very few are actually willing to administer it.

We deceived ourselves into thinking that assisted death is a medical therapy for a medical problem, when in fact it is an existential therapy for a spiritual problem.

There is also self-deception with respect to the cause of death. In Canada, when a patient dies by doctor-assisted death, the person completing the death certificate is required to record the cause of death as the reason that the patient requested euthanasia, not the act of euthanasia per se. This must lead to all sorts of moments of absurdity for physicians completing death certificates—do patients really die from advanced osteoarthritis? (one of the many reasons patients have sought and obtained euthanasia). I suspect that this practice is intended to shield those who perform euthanasia from any long-term legal liability should the law be reversed. But if medicine, medical progress, and medical safety are predicated on an honest acknowledgment about causes of death, then this form of self-deception should not be countenanced. We need to be honest with ourselves about why our patients die.

There has also been self-deception about whether physician-assisted death is a form of suicide. Some proponents of assisted death contend that assisted death is not an act of deliberate self-killing, but rather merely a choice over the manner and timing of one's death. It's not clear why one would try to distort language this way and deny that “physician-assisted suicide” is suicide, except perhaps to assuage conscience and minimize stigma. Perhaps we all know that suicide is never really a form of self-respect. To sustain our moral and social affirmation of physician-assisted death, we have to deny what this practice actually represents.

There has been self-deception about the possibility of putting limits around the practice of assisted death. Early on, advocates insisted that euthanasia would be available only to those for whom death was reasonably foreseeable (to use the Canadian legal parlance). But once death comes to be viewed as a therapeutic option, the therapeutic possibilities become nearly limitless. Death was soon viewed as a therapy for severe disability or for health-related consequences of poverty and loneliness (though often poverty and loneliness are the consequence of the health issues). Soon we were talking about death as a therapy for mental illness. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is grievous and irremediable suffering. Death inevitably becomes therapeutic option for any form of suffering. Efforts to limit the practice to certain populations (e.g. those with disabilities) are inevitably seen as paternalistic and discriminatory.

There has been self-deception about the reasons justifying legalization of assisted death. Before legalization, advocates decry the uncontrolled physical suffering associated with the dying process and claim that prohibiting assisted death dehumanizes patients and leaves them in agony. Once legalized, it rapidly becomes clear that this therapy is not for physical suffering but rather for existential suffering: the loss of autonomy, the sense of being a burden, the despair of seeing any point in going on with life. The desire for death reflects a crisis of meaning. We deceived ourselves into thinking that assisted death is a medical therapy for a medical problem, when in fact it is an existential therapy for a spiritual problem.

We have also deceived ourselves by claiming to know whether some patients are better off dead, when in fact we have no idea what it's like to be dead. The utilitarian calculus underpinning the logic of assisted death relies on the presumption that we know what it is like before we die in comparison to what it is like after we die. In general, the unstated assumption is that there is nothing after death. This is perhaps why the practice is generally promoted by atheists and opposed by theists. But in my experience, it is very rare for people to address this question explicitly. They prefer to let the question of existence beyond death lie dormant, untouched. To think that physicians qua physicians have any expertise on or authority on the question of what it’s like to be dead, or that such medicine can at all comport with a scientific evidence-based approach to medical decision-making, is a profound self-deception.

Finally, we deceive ourselves when we pretend that ending people’s lives at their voluntary request is all about respecting personal autonomy. People seek death when they can see no other way forward with life—they are subject to the constraints of their circumstances, finances, support networks, and even internal spiritual resources. We are not nearly so autonomous as we wish to think. And in the end, the patient does not choose whether to die; the doctor chooses whether the patient should die. The patient requests, the doctor decides. Recent new stories have made clear the challenges for practitioners of euthanasia to pick and choose who should die among their patients. In Canada, you can have death, but only if your doctor agrees that your life is not worth living. However much these doctors might purport to act from compassion, one cannot help see a connection to Nazi physicians labelling the unwanted as “Lebensunwortes leben”—life unworthy of life. In adopting assisted death, we cannot avoid dehumanizing ourselves. Death with dignity is a deception.

These many acts of self-deception in relation to physician-assisted death should not surprise us, for the practice is intrinsically self-deceptive. It claims to be motivated by the value of the patient; it claims to promote the dignity of the patient; it claims to respect the autonomy of the patient. In fact, it directly contravenes all three of those goods.

It degrades the value of the patient by accepting that it doesn't matter whether or not the patient exists.

It denies the dignity of the patient by treating the patient as a mere means to an end—the sufferer is ended in order to end the suffering.

It destroys the autonomy of the patient because it takes away autonomy. The patient might autonomously express a desire for death, but the act of rendering someone dead does not enhance their autonomy; it obliterates it.

Yet the need for self-deception represents the fatal weakness of this practice. In time, truth will win over falsehood, light over darkness, wisdom over folly. So let us ever cling to the truth, and faithfully continue to speak the truth in love to the dying and the living. Truth overcomes pressure. The truth will set us free.