Imagine that your surgical resident approaches you about the patient you are meant to operate on tomorrow. “I know that being a smoker makes this operation much more likely to fail and I just found out that Mrs. SB smokes”. “Really? How do you know” you ask. “Um, well, Facebook. She’s um, well, my friend’s friend’s friend’s mom…”
This is the type of case that sparks debate as I found out on a recent ethics panel at the American Surgical Congress. It really brings us back to the question of caring for our patients. Is caring for our patients letting them make potentially medically unsound decisions and keeping all information they wish private in the name of autonomy? Or does it mean digging deeper into this issue and sharing with our patients what we found and how, with the end result of potentially delaying the procedure to ensure adequate healing?
Furthermore, if indeed searchable information provides a lot of additional information that would allow us to better treat patients, do we have an obligation to do so as part of the medical history? Unfortunately the issue isn’t quite so simple and will require some thoughtful consideration in this new age of social media.
What can be said about accuracy of information found during online public searches? If information that is public is posted by people other than the person involved, is it really considered public in the moral, rather than the legal sense?
Patients are weighing in as well, with several communications and blogs out recently in which they ask whether their doctor should be allowed to Google them. While many of us can see the potential utility in such a practice and think of emergency situations where this might be extremely beneficial, there are certainly concerns.
We must maintain our doctor-patient relationships, which are built on honest communications and trust. For instance, if my life partner felt it was necessary to Google me for more information, that would certainly affect the question of trust between us. If they did so and were unable to express their intent in such a search, things might get even more tense and lead to breakdown. On the other hand, if a search was intended to help or protect me, on an issue where I needed or desired help, I might feel differently.
Social media is stimulating many more questions about what caring really is. It has been called the new house call – allowing practitioners to respond to patients’ needs in the place that the patient is seeking assistance. In fact, while many see technologies as creating a physical distance between providers and patients, I can also see the technology as bridging a gap, perhaps as the telephone did many years ago at its inception.
When I give a patient the ability to connect with me online, I become accessible to them in a way that may not have been possible in recent years. And I hope that I am becoming accessible in more than only the physical way. My participation on Twitter is a part of my personal and professional life that I hope has humanized me, “the surgeon,” in a way that is positive and engenders confidence.
Finally, how can we begin to deal with the exponential increase in knowledge, but also in misinformation if, as a profession, we do not engage? For example, anti-medical social media campaigns have contributed to resurgent epidemics in infectious disease. If we extend our definition of caring to public health advocacy, do we then have a moral obligation to care by tweeting the new Facebook link to organ donation registries around the world? I’m not sure that is the case currently, but I do envision a future where active participation in social media is a requirement of professionalism and an important part of the #newandimproveddoctorpatientrelationship.
– Karen Devon, February 2015
Want to learn more about AMS and the people and projects we fund?
Follow us on twitter.
Interested in learning more about AMS funded opportunities? Sign up
for our newsletter to gain access to our funding calendar (this newsletter
link scrolls to the footer.)