Pro Active Healthcare

I saw a consultant this week & have to have laparoscopic Gall Bladder surgery & an Endoscopy. Not too worried about the former, but I've had an Endoscopy & know what a horrible procedure it is. So will be quite stressed.

The reason that this is of any interest is because of the diagnosis process. It all stems from chest pain I've been having for about 18 months. The first time I contacted the surgery out of hours they called out an ambulance because of suspected heart attack. It wasn't. So I was able to stop a needless ambulance call when it happened again. The on call doctor was very helpful, but was surprised that no one had pursued gall stones as a possible cause. He told me to go to the surgery & ask for an ultrasound scan.

Well, we all tend to believe that doctors know what they are doing. So when the GP told me that it wasn't gall stones it was reflux I believed him and accepted his advice that I didn't need a scan. Fortunately I go to a good accupuncturist, who agreed with the gall stones diagnosis. So I contacted the senior partner who arranged the scan, which confirmed the gall stones, hence the visit to the consultant.

My first query is why the GP didn't err on the side of caution & accept the recommendation of the out of hours doctor. Cynically I wonder if it is a question of cost. How lucky that I was confident enough to pursue the matter.

My accupuncturist suggested I go the route, which he had done successfully, of dispersing the stones naturally through diet. First you soften the stones, then you drink a mixture which makes you excrete them. The consultant knew about this when I asked, but advised against it because there is "no scientific evidence that it works". His advice was that because the Gall Bladder is diseased there is no alternative to surgery.

So my second question is how on earth a patient is supposed to make a decision when there are two diametrically opposing views as to treatment? Also why research isn't done into natural methods of dealing with ailments? Because of the medical profession's obsession with evidence based treatments, more natural & anecdotally successful methods are not being tried & researched. Many of these treatments have been around for years & do seem to have been successful. They are certainly far less invasive than surgery with all it's attendant risks.

I do wonder if surgeons are pre-disposed to surgery to the exclusion of alternatives. I'm a "high risk" patient because of my heart problems. I have no way of knowing whether the natural method or the surgery is more of a risk for me. Frankly it's a lottery. I will do what the surgeon says, partly because I'm concerned about going the other route living alone as I do. There could be complications even from the "natural" method, & I don't much fancy being on my own if they arise.

I'm left with the thought that it's my body & I want to be in a position to make the best decision for me & be helped to do that. Not sure that happens in today's NHS. I also think that patients have a responsibility to look after themselves and manage their own conditions, a view which the NHS is endorsing more and more. But if the NHS want us to do that, they have to provide the information & facilities to enable it to happen. We each know our body better than any doctor. I don't want paternalistic, god like, doctors - usually men. I want open minded people who listen to the information I give & respect it.