I just read an article full of advice on what to do and what not to do to avoid litigation. A lot of it is actually commonsense. The main message the writer was trying to convey is: “less is best”. Sure. If you don’t want to get killed on a mountain, don’t go climb it. In other words, be conservative. But the realities of running a practice aren’t that simple.
Take my medical colleagues for instance. Let’s say the patient suffers from a mild infection. You prescribe something mild and try to treat it while informing the patient that you would bring out the big guns only when the small ones don’t work. How do most Singaporeans react to that? Well, most likely, they’ll react in a kiasu way. i.e. It’s better to overkill than to go in a second time. One thing is for sure, they will not thank you for being conservative with them. They want instant results and if you can’t give it to them by using the most kiasu big guns to kill the smallest bugs, they’re going to go to someone else. Doctors know what is best for their patients, but less is often not best as patients grow smarter and more impatient. “Why didn’t you use this wonder drug [I read about from the internet] that this other clinic is using?”. It’s not entirely the doctor’s fault when doctors overkill.
Going back to the article the writer advises dentists to consider whitening root canal treated teeth that have turned black before even considering crowning. To the writer, enamel is precious and crowning is riskier than bleaching. But we all know that root canal treated teeth are quite fragile. What if the (front)tooth breaks (over the weekend!)? The patient may turn around and ask the dentist why he hadn’t done the crown. In doing 2 procedures (bleaching and crowning) instead of just one, won’t that raise suspicions in the mind of the cynical patient?
I’m not trying to discredit the writer, but trouble can come to you whether you do something or decide not to do something first. Are we really playing safe when we do less?
Dewdrop Notes
Dr Chan's Kitchen