Comments on: Dying patients and their physicians – I speculate

By: rica

rica — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:35:08 +0000

If I were to be an oncologist, I'd rather concentrate on my patient than on the disease he/she is carrying. I could say this because people tend to get sick in many ways like out of depression, bad eating habits, those who doesn't have the time to exercise, and more. And one cure that i know is to give the patient some encouragement to fight it with humorous jokes or stories to tell. Giving them the joy that they need,keeping them happy and educating them how exercise and good eating habits could help them be cured of their condition. coral springs oncologist

By: Cancergiggles

Cancergiggles — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:40:21 +0000

Take a look at the “Wizard” entries. It can be done right.

By: CHenry

CHenry — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:58:50 +0000

The last point by Sydney Smith is particularly telling. Why didn’t the writer of this letter keep his private disappointment private? If this was published, then it is not what it tries appear–a literate and genteel expression of disappointment–but rather a public shaming. I agree, the writer has other motives. And who knows whether this version of the truth is in fact fair and true? How many others have also failed the deceased in this writer’s mind? I would be empathetic had the writer not chosen to publish the letter. As it is, it approaches a backhanded libel.

By: sydney smith

sydney smith — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:56 +0000

I would add that the oncologist’s “withdrawl” may not be so much psychologically motivated, but of necessity. The article says that the oncologist practices in a New York City cancer center. He/she likely has a very busy oncology practice, and if hospice care there is anything like it is in my much smaller city, the hospice doctors take over once a patient enters hospice. There isn’t much room for the primary care doctor or the oncologist in the treatment plan – no room in fact.

Primary care doctors have the advantage of having few dying patients at any one time, so we can make what amounts to social contacts with the family to let them know we care. The majority of oncologists’ patients, on the other hand, are dying. You can only spread yourself so far. Perhaps this oncologist’s time for caring was being used on a patient who didn’t have a hospice doctor to step in.

And BTW, does anyone else find it odd that the patient’s husband would give his letter to the New York Times? Wouldn’t it have been enough to deliver the reprimand just to the oncologist? Why the publicity, if not to just twist the knife in a little further? I’m always skeptical of those who say they’re doing this “so others will be informed.” There’s usually a much more personal motivation at work. Suspect that’s the case here, too.

By: arf

arf — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:35:21 +0000

Don’t know if I buy your “old school” vs. “new school” concept.

Nitpicking, I know, but what the hey……

The REAL “old school” oncologists most certainly DID follow patients throught their deaths, because they really did not have much more to offer.

I submit it’s the “new school” who may leave the patient when there is nothing else to do.

Or maybe I’ve just seen a different breed of oncologists over the years…..