Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Docs versus Glocks: Why doesn’t the public trust physicians?

Abigail Schildcrout, MD
Policy
September 11, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

Doctors talk with their patients about many things that might make some people uncomfortable — sexual issues, abuse (physical or emotional), anxiety, depression, sleep habits, bowel habits, and fears about health-related topics — things that many people might not talk about in casual conversation at the coffee shop or at work. Doctors talk with their patients about smoking, weight, eating habits, exercise, seat belt use, helmet use, and a myriad of other health and safety issues. Talking about really personal stuff is what doctors do — we’re privy to some of the most intimate details of people’s lives. We have to be. We can’t do our jobs right without thorough and open communication with our patients.

But Florida recently passed a law (which a federal appeals court ruled constitutional) that will punish doctors who ask about firearms unless that discussion is “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.” Well, a pretty big point of discussing firearms with patients is that unlocked, loaded firearms can be exceedingly relevant to the safety of the patient and others. This is a bizarre incursion of the legislature into a doctor’s office. And I don’t like legislators in doctors’ offices. The only people who belong in a doctor’s office are the doctor, the patient, and other people whom the patient expressly invites.

As Dr. Francis W. Peabody of Harvard Medical Service famously said in his speech to medical students in 1925, “One of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” A good doctor cares about her patient. She asks questions so that she can understand her patients and best provide information that will benefit them. And our words frequently make a difference in people’s lives. Our thoughts, explanations, time, and support make a difference. Patients are more likely to address smoking and weight issues when these issues are broached by their doctors and specific risks are explained to them. I would extrapolate that parents would be more likely to keep firearms locked away out of children’s reach if their children’s pediatricians discussed firearm safety with them the same way pediatricians discuss car seat safety.

The arguments of the people who pushed for and are in favor of this particular piece of legislation state it as an invasion-of-privacy concern. Extrapolating from the comments sections of the online articles pertaining to this issue, there is a not-insignificant number of folks with the perception that doctors are the puppets of the government, gathering information and putting it into a big governmental database. Basically, people don’t trust that they have any privacy in their doctors’ offices.

There have been other “gag order” laws restricting what doctors are allowed to discuss with their patients (e.g., women’s health issues), but these have historically been put in place to prevent physicians from providing certain medical information to patients. The recent Florida legislation was put in place to prevent physicians from receiving certain information from patients. This particular legislative control of informational flow thus differs from others in its directionality. Traditionally, the intrusion into the doctor’s office has been due to the proponents of the laws not trusting patients (read: “not trusting women”) with information, but the current law in question indicates that its proponents don’t trust the doctors.

Pretty much any doctor-patient interaction could be construed as an invasion of privacy. Clothes are off. Orifices are inspected. Intimate subjects are discussed. And in the past there has been an understanding that all of that stays in the exam room. It’s not anyone else’s business.

But now there’s a computer in that room. And it’s pretty much a government mandated computer.

The computer certainly has some benefits for patients — it can help with remote access to records and it can catch potential drug interactions. It can help remind doctors when someone is due for a mammogram or colonoscopy. Of course it is only as good as the data entered, but when that is done with care and diligence, it can definitely be clinically helpful. And the data can be mined, hopefully in ways that provide useful clinical insights. Of course the main impetus behind that computer, and the reason it was mandated, is Medicare/Medicaid billing and payment decisions.

That computer, despite its clinical benefits, has costs. It draws a doctor’s focus and attention away from a patient and onto a screen. When was the last time your doctor spent more than 10 seconds in a row making eye contact with you? Doctors end up staring at the computer screen, reading down a list of questions and clicking boxes with the answers. So there is the sense that someone else is in the room. And there is a subsequent loss of trust.

As many thousands of pages there may be in the HIPAA laws (which are there to protect electronic patient information), I haven’t met anyone who trusts a computer more than (or even as much as) they trust a person. And most doctors I’ve spoken with don’t completely trust their electronic medical record systems or the infallibility of mandated practice protocols. Maybe the general public isn’t trusting us because we’re not completely trusting ourselves.

Abigail Schildcrout is founder, Practical Medical Insights, and blogs at DocThoughts.

Prev

CVS removes tobacco products: Did they go far enough?

September 11, 2014 Kevin 6
…
Next

Implantables and embeddables: Is health care ready?

September 11, 2014 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Pediatrics, Primary Care

Post navigation

< Previous Post
CVS removes tobacco products: Did they go far enough?
Next Post >
Implantables and embeddables: Is health care ready?

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Abigail Schildcrout, MD

  • We have the same end-goals, but disagree on how to reach them

    Abigail Schildcrout, MD
  • A physician’s poignant election thoughts

    Abigail Schildcrout, MD
  • My job as a doctor is to take data and apply it to real people

    Abigail Schildcrout, MD

More in Policy

  • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    Trevor Lyford, MPH
  • The CDC’s restructuring: Where is the voice of health care in the room?

    Tarek Khrisat, MD
  • Choosing between care and country: a dual citizen’s Independence Day reflection

    Kathleen Muldoon, PhD
  • How fragmented records and poor tracking degrade patient outcomes

    Michael R. McGuire
  • U.S. health care leadership must prepare for policy-driven change

    Lee Scheinbart, MD
  • How locum tenens work helps physicians and APPs reclaim control

    Brian Sutter
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • How community paramedicine impacts Indigenous elders

      Noah Weinberg | Conditions
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How medical culture hides burnout in plain sight

      Marco Benítez | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Who will train the next generation of primary care clinicians without physician mentorship? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
    • The CDC’s restructuring: Where is the voice of health care in the room?

      Tarek Khrisat, MD | Policy
    • Choosing between care and country: a dual citizen’s Independence Day reflection

      Kathleen Muldoon, PhD | Policy
    • What Elon Musk and Diddy reveal about the price of power

      Osmund Agbo, MD | Conditions
    • 3 tips for using AI medical scribes to save time charting

      Erica Dorn, FNP | Tech

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 69 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How New Mexico became a malpractice lawsuit hotspot

      Patrick Hudson, MD | Physician
    • How community paramedicine impacts Indigenous elders

      Noah Weinberg | Conditions
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • How medical culture hides burnout in plain sight

      Marco Benítez | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Who will train the next generation of primary care clinicians without physician mentorship? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
    • The CDC’s restructuring: Where is the voice of health care in the room?

      Tarek Khrisat, MD | Policy
    • Choosing between care and country: a dual citizen’s Independence Day reflection

      Kathleen Muldoon, PhD | Policy
    • What Elon Musk and Diddy reveal about the price of power

      Osmund Agbo, MD | Conditions
    • 3 tips for using AI medical scribes to save time charting

      Erica Dorn, FNP | Tech

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Docs versus Glocks: Why doesn’t the public trust physicians?
69 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...