Since we are referring to female specific problems and doctors denying/ignoring them in this thread I felt it was appropriate for others to learn what they might not know.

The study of medicine is thousands of years old, medicine as it relates to a woman, her genitalia and how they are different then men is still relatively new.

Conveying what an MD told me is not purporting to be an expert. In case you're referencing me snidely.

Since I live in that world, if there is anything I have learned, not even two MDs in the same practice agree!!! They have opinions and you can have a personal one about your own care. Make sure your MD understands you understand what your preference is and check to see if it's a wise one. I took my physician's comments to mean she'd carry out her own personal care the same way I've chosen. Seems safe to me.

For me, the complication is having children. I try to subject my body to as little medical interference as possible. At the risk of sounding smug (I really don't mean to because I know these are serious issues), my personal "medical plan is", if I'm still alive in five years, it was nothing; if not, it was something.

BUT I DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. To me, that is the game changer. If I had children, I'd probably be a bit more inclined to et screened periodically for "stuff". Otherwise, I'm of the mindset like the "old Maine coots", who live to 100 by just getting on with their daily lives and going to the doc if they think something is wrong.

I also believe the medical system in the US has a way of sucking people into it such that they can't get back out, namely via prescribing a drug for every ailment. I try like heck to keep drugs out of my body. Fortunately, I have a wonderful doctor who goes along -but also has th sense to draw the line when she feels she really has to, and makes me come in or take that antibiotic...(I'm terrified she's going to retire!).

I do believe one has to stay alive and well as best and as long as possible if they have children (including adult children). But if not, I think it's best to listen to your body, get on with your life, and utilize the medical system as little as possible.

A few random thoughts about the "experts:"

My parents listened to one, believing he gave them good advice, and that's how I ended up getting dangerously irradiated at age 6.

When I was born, my mother's doctor, obviously knowing nothing about lactation, told her she didn't have enough milk to breastfeed, thus beginning a long period of misery for both of us while she tried formula after formula made with the cow's milk I'm still allergic to.

A young physician, whom I suspect got through med school on his good looks, blew off my knee pain following a tick bite, saying it was "something overweight women over 40 get." I didn't think I was overweight, but apparently he did.

Another time, when I went to the ER with a bullseye rash on my chest, the ER doctor said I must have punched myself in my sleep.

Five years ago I had increasingly severe pain on the left side of my back, at the waist. I couldn't lie down. My doctor was away, and I saw his nurse-practitioner for the first time. I've had good experiences with other CNPs, so I was fine with that--until she told me I had an abscessed colon and needed to have a CT scan. She also wanted me to take Flagyl, which I know is not the safest drug out there. When she mentioned that MRIs expose patients to jus as much radiation as CT scans, I lost all confidence in her, and went home.

The next night, although it was the last place I wanted to be, I drove myself to the ER at 3:00 a.m. When I got there, I looked in the mirror and realized pain can age us 20 years or more. I was there so long I saw three different doctors, none who took me very seriously. One seemed to think I was there to score some pain pills. Another said he was certain I had a kidney stone, but couldn't diagnose it without a CT scan. (How were kidney stones diagnosed before CT scans?) I told him I avoid x-rays as much as possible because of my history. He listened to my tale of having my adenoids burned out as a small child, a large number of x-rays following a concussion in my teens, multiple fluoroscopes when I was infertile, etc., and said "That's nothing." I was in so much pain I didn't care anymore.

So I had the CT scan (the equivalent of 250 chest x-rays), and it revealed all was normal. They threw up their hands, gave me some pain pills, and sent me home. Two days later my doctor diagnosed shingles.

And this has nothing to do with my medical treatment, but it does reflect attitude. Years ago, at a famous medical center I chatted with the physician who was treating a member of my family. "What do you do?" he asked at one point. I told him I was a mother to my three children. "Oh," he said, clearly disappointed. "I thought you were intelligent."

Medicine is at least as much 'a living' as it is 'a calling'. If tests exist, doctors will have pressure to order them. They are pressured by their patients to prescribe useless tests and medicines. The MD must defend against accusations of malpractice -- as well as keep up profits from testing. (You can't just leave all those expensive machines sitting idle, you know!) When *anything* is 'found', it must be *treated*. This is a no-win situation.

Only now are hospitals being denied claims when they over-treat patients. Only now is *OUTCOME* being applied as a yardstick for professional care -- and not yet for all categories of illness. It has requited monetary losses to hospitals to budge this profit-making machine -- and, to be fair, to give a provider some legs to stand on when denying useless treatments. (It's been decades since the DRG rulings denied payment to hospitals who kept beds profitably filled with patients who no longer required hospitalization.)

I'm appalled by the profits raked in by the whole 'pink' regime. The public doesn't know the difference between a woman who survived a genuine, life-threatening cancer and one who was over-tested and over-treated for a *nothing* of a blip. Improved detection is 'catching' particles as dangerous as dust motes, and shame on you if you don't celebrate -- and contribute!

A related breaking news story from the New York Times this morning:

In a shift, the American Cancer Society is recommending women have mammograms later and less often

Being a tad less neurotic about life and death and accepting of death might help too. We're not good at it here in the US.

I think there is something to be said for that.

If your doctor isn't listening to you with respect, compassion and expertise, you need to find another doctor. No matter what the problem is. On the other hand, go to receive advice and a diagnosis, not to give them.

There are a lot of crappy doctors around, especially in small towns. If you're in that situation, you might do better going to a larger town or, better yet, finding docs who are adjunct clinical faculty at a medical school . Those of that ilk are more inclined to stay most current and work collegially with other docs.

Think about it, becoming an MD requires demonstrating extreme academic prowess. Med schools are just starting now to pay more attention to social and other soft skills that for years were ignored in admission screening. Plenty of egotistical introverts with God complexes are out in practice. If you find yourself with one, move on fast.

Alisande, with all due respect, you've said you're in your mid- 70s. Your family's experiences with medical doctors during your childhood years are hardly lessons to carry forward to today.

edit to say - no reference to your comment rob. Sorry if unclear.

Sounds good, in theory, Snidely. But in the real world, good luck trying to get an emergency appointment with your respectful, compassionate, superbly-qualified primary doctor when you need to see a doctor ASAP. The very good doctors are in high demand and are booked solid for weeks. You get who is available, and the follow-up might be with your primary. If the doctor that you see refers you to a specialist, then the follow-up is often with the specialist. During the two times I went in this year, my doctor was out on maternity leave and, later, a family emergency.

On the other hand, go to receive advice and a diagnosis, not to give them.

I never said I gave any diagnoses! I said I would not allow them to simply dismiss what I was saying when I knew something was wrong and that it needed medical attention. You like to come off as being knowledgeable in all areas, and often what you post is accurate. But sometimes you really do not have a clue, Snidely. Not surprisingly, women and their professional relationship with doctors obviously falls outside your arenas of expertise.

After my previous post I got to thinking. And then had a really good laugh! Let's see: I post about some medical experiences. Someone quickly scan-reads it, takes out a few tidbits of info, infuses things that were never said or expressed but they just assume applies, and decides that even with only .00001 percent of the background information (at best!) that they have sufficient knowledge about you and your situation to make an accurate call as to what needs to be done.

"Wait, that doesn't seem to be a logical course of action for my situation. Have you taken into account that...." I protest, as the doctor barely nods and continues to write things onto the computer's file.

"You just need to do what I say. I know all about these things and you are behaving foolishly."

So many parallels to long-past visits to doctors, it should have been an immediately recognizable dance with Dr. Whiplash. :D

snidely, I've said it before and I'll say it again, that's my world you're talking about there. You have them on some high up pedestal and I can tell you, much of your info is wrong. You're assuming things that aren't based on any facts, merely your perception of what you think is going on. Sorry, but it's just not true. All physicians are highly educated (what they get out of it is up to them) and do their best to be current (through communicating with those more adept than they, conferences, journals, etc.).

I'm sorry if I said anything wrong regarding to whom you directed your comment, but I still think it stands. Communicating what's going on around us whether in articles or in person, doesn't mean we're trying to be experts-simply discussing. There are things that have been in vogue and out, even in medicine. Especially in medicine. Do you know they're discussing the mouth-to-mouth part of CPR being sometimes unnecessary? Whoda thunk that one?! It's been standard of practice for how long?

Resuscitation journal article-Can gentle chest compressions result in substantial ventilation?

Snidely, your posts are usually pretty clear, but I still don't know what you're getting at when you say"

For this as with any other medical matter, there is no substitute for expert advice.

My original post was about a research study. A big one, done over 25 years. It gave us (all of us) a critical piece of information we didn't have before. Surely you're not saying we need "expert advice" in order to understand the conclusions of the researchers. The report was very clear.

I don't expect very many physicians will read this study and start telling patients not to bother having mammograms. Given the malpractice situation in this country, I get that. But I do think they should discuss the findings with their patients. And yes, in an ideal world I think they should weigh each patient's situation and risk factors, and advise accordingly. But all this takes time, more time than most doctors spend in an average office visit these days. (I suspect insurance companies have something to do with that.)

In the end, we are all the stewards of our bodies, and it's a big mistake not to be an informed medical consumer--as best we can. Of course this involves getting information and advice from our physicians, but they are only human. No one doctor knows everything about every condition or potential condition. This is why, for example, second opinions are often recommended.

Going back to your "no substitute for expert advice" statement, the current tick situation blows massive holes in that. In many parts of the world people are getting sick from tick bites, and receiving little or no help. In our country, the CDC is still dispensing useless advice, and that trickles down to the doctors. Some of them suspect that there's more to the treatment than the CDC protocol, but their hands are tied by insurance companies. Some doctors have been severely sanctioned for going beyond the guidelines. In my area, a hotbed of tick activity, most of the doctors are clueless about tick-borne illnesses. They don't even know the names of the Lyme co-infections.

I'm 72, by the way; I never said I was in my mid-70s. While I don't mind telling my age, I'm in no hurry to advance it unnaturally. :-)

As for the advice my parents received so long ago being irrelevant today, I certainly hope no child is getting unnecessarily and dangerously irradiated the way I was, but I know for a fact (because I've been a La Leche League Leader and District Advisor) that doctors are still dispensing erroneous breastfeeding advice, dooming mothers and babies to early weaning. In any case, both these examples carry forward to today because they illustrate why blind trust in physicians (or a lot of other people I can think of) is often a mistake.

The revision says to start mammograms at age 40 -- or later. I would have been spared two unnecessary biopsies -- one at age 24, where immediately before the surgery I was presented with a release for removal of a breast -- or both! -- while still under anesthetic (should the result be positive for cancer).

BTW, that 'lump' was a result of hormones I'd been given by another MD who was treating my infertility. He about jumped out of his skin when he learned what I'd been put through. (Some of this lack of communications between 'specialists' is being addressed within hospital-based 'health systems'.)

The revision says to stop interfering with Stage 0 'in situ' findings. Well, duh! (I would not have had a second and third biopsy, nor a painful stereotactical procedure.)

The revision says to stop testing women who are within ten years of their life expectancy. I may live longer than 84, but...I Am Done with 'routine mammography'.

The revision is geared to stop treating every woman as though she was *likely* to develop a life threatening breast cancer. About time something ended this profitable abuse.

rob, my views are consistent with the comments in your last post.

I don't put doctors on a pedestal, not at all. Yes, alisande, knowledge can be lacking, there's no better example of that than the tick situation. Research and advances can take a long time to crystallize an scientific understanding. The alternative isn't to find an Indian shamen to prepare a salve. And views do change over time as experience with treatment approaches is gained.

Gyr, you seem to have had experiences with doctors that are both unfortunate and inexcusable. I'm sorry for that. You can be treated disrespectfully and unsatisfactorily (from your perspective) only if you allow yourself to be. A doctor who is unavailable and doesn't provide for competent coverage in their absence should be replaced.

Yes, we trade soundbites. It's too easy to misphrase a comment when typing quickly (I do it all the time, I'm the opposite of eloquent) and too easy to misunderstand a comment. None of us are experts in most of what is discussed. We all have impressions, biases, information sources, and we trade ideas. More interesting when we disagree, but I believe none of the comments are ever intended to be personal, I assume that for the ones I receive and you all should assume that for the ones I offer.

Allsande, not meaning to derail, but I wanted to thank you for bringing up tick co-infections. SoCal does not experience the level of tick diseases as other parts of the country (thank you Western Fence Lizard?), so it is rarely brought up, and even then the information is cursory, at best. Curious, I went searching for more info. I don't know if the PMC article I was reading is accurate, but it sure was interesting and at least I came away with much more awareness of the issue.

Learn something new every day.

You can be treated disrespectfully and unsatisfactorily (from your perspective) only if you allow yourself to be.

Taking your suggestion to heart, stop inferring that I am responsible whenever someone chooses to treat me disrespectfully and unsatisfactorily. Nope. Not very effective after the fact and I have doubts it dead-headed any buds. :-)

Glad to be helpful, GyrFalcon. I didn't read the PMC article in its entirety, but I was surprised they dismiss babesiosis as "of little consequence." I suspect they may have said that because our public (Red Cross) blood supply is infected with it, and heaven forbid anyone becomes alarmed.

Several years ago I spoke with one of the foremost researchers of Babesia. A very nice man and generous with his knowledge, he said babesiosis had never been reported in my area. I told him it was unlikely it will ever be reported here because a) most physicians here never heard of it, and b) the blood test costs $3,000 and is not covered by insurance.

By the way, the article misspelled azithromycin. :-)

Snidely, about this:

Yes, alisande, knowledge can be lacking, there's no better example of that than the tick situation. Research and advances can take a long time to crystallize an scientific understanding. The alternative isn't to find an Indian shamen to prepare a salve.

What, then, is your alternative? I would think seeking out a shaman's salve is preferable to sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best while the symptoms get progressively and dangerously worse.

lol @ By the way, the article misspelled azithromycin. whoops!

Thanks for the additional insight, Alisande.

Snidely, what you're talking about is theory: That doctors should be more knowledgeable and helpful than anything one can learn on one's own. What we're talking about is the reality. You also dismiss the feminine model of information disbursal. We think and communicate in our own way, which is very different from the linear way that men are taught. What you see as dribbles and bits, we use as parts of the puzzle that help us fill in a complete picture. I get it that you just don't understand, but you keep saying the same thing over and over about trust your doctor that it comes out sounding like don't worry your pretty little heads. Just smile and do what the nice man says. That might not be your intention, but, especially for those of us over 30 (the younger ones have different cultural norms), that is precisely the kind of attitude that gets us doing our own research and becoming better informed about our particular issues than the supposedly educated practitioners who let us down over and over again. It's facile to say it's our fault for letting doctors treat us badly, when there are so few, who are so hard to find, who don't. If one goes doctor hopping, trying to find a decent one, a woman also gets labelled as "needy" and "attention seeking" and dismissed, let alone the repercussions from the insurance companies. It's far more practical to do one's own learning. Better physicians often are interested in what their patients have learned, when they weren't at all attentive to the issues that sent them to study up in the first place.

That is so VERY well-said, Plllog. Thank you for writing.

I'm surprised and also sorry that so many of you seem to have had consistent experiences that lead you to expect dismissive and disrespectful conduct from doctors. I accept that.

I guess that wasn't so clear to me because neither I nor the women in my family seem to have the same experiences or attitudes as expressed here. Why the difference? I don't know.

The difference? Good fortune. It happens. :)

A high and prominent social status also doesn't hurt.

snidely, if i had to guess, two reasons come to mind: they do say, but it's played down (could come from either side), or more likely, they don't say. Women tend not to say. We don't want you to know. Or can feel like poor treatment was earned/deserved. Not guaranteed to have happened, just possible.

Interesting how a post about WOMEN'S mammograms has been primarily trying to justify/explain to a MAN about our experiences.

I'm a guy, but from experience I am a believer of regular self exam. It is important that both men and women know how to do self exams and what to look for. Fifteen years ago, my wife had a mammogram with a clean result. Six months later, she discovered a lump in her breast that was the size of a nickel. She was terrified because she knew this was a fast growing lump. She took immediate actions - it proved cancerous. A mastectomy and 15 years later, she is alive, well, retired, and one active gad-about. Self exam caught the rascal that was impractical to discover by mammogram because its not a good practice to expose ones self to radiation on a frequent basis. However, this case does not imply that mammograms are useless; It reinforces self vigilance.

jemdandy, I am glad your wife is well. There is a difference between a guy relating his wife/mother/sister/daughter's experience and a guy challenging women's health care experiences. On a thread about mammograms.

Tibbrix wrote, "BUT I DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. To me, that is the game changer."

Since the OP was about mammograms....

I had always heard that a woman's risk of breast cancer was higher if she hadn't carried a pregnancy to term by the age of 30, regardless of her other risk factors. Although I had been pregnant well before the age of 30, my pregnancies ended in miscarriages. I have never carried a pregnancy to term. My mother and maternal aunt both died from breast cancer, as did one of my maternal great-grandmothers. So, I've been told that my risk for breast cancer is very high.

When I was 39, my gynecologist felt a lump in my right breast during my annual exam. I was sent for a mammogram, which didn't show a lump. But, the lump was definitely still there, so I was sent to a surgeon for an exam. The surgeon felt the lump, and I was scheduled for surgery to remove it. It was done under a "local with sedation," which meant that in addition to the local anesthetic administered to my breast, I was given IV Valium. The pathologist came to the OR to get the lump and took it to the lab to do a frozen section. Everything was "on hold" in the OR waiting for the call from the lab. I knew with my family history that the lab result would be "positive for carcinoma." Ever since my mother's mastectomy, I knew it was a matter of "when, not if." When the OR phone rang, it was answered on speakerphone. When the pathologist said, "It's benign," the entire OR crew whooped and hollered. I was in shock.

Two years later I had a lump removed from my left breast -- also benign, thankfully. And later that same year I had a hysterectomy. From what I understand, even high-risk women have their risk factor greatly lowered after a hysterectomy if the ovaries are removed (and mine were).

I used to have a mammogram every year. I didn't have one last year, but I did this year. The place where I go, now routinely does 3D mammograms.

Thank you Alisande for presenting this great study. Some good discussion here.

Even docs who agree w/ this study often will not change until it becomes "standard of care" for a multitude of reasons. It can be difficult and time consuming to convince patients they do not need things (e.g., antibiotics for viral infection, brain CT minor head bump). So I spend the time explaining/ convincing a pt she probably does not need a mammogram and she gets breast Ca, will she sue me? Easier/safer to follow national guidelines (vs. new research findings). Medicine is slowly (too slowly IMHO) moving toward evidence based practice.

Current national screening recommendations:
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/recommendations

Who funded the study?

Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative, Canadian Cancer Society, Health and Welfare Canada, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Alberta Heritage Fund for Cancer Research, Manitoba Health Services Commission, Medical Research Council of Canada, le Ministère de la Santé et des Services Soçiaux du Québec, Nova Scotia Department of Health, and Ontario Ministry of Health. ABM was supported in part by a national health scientist award from Health and Welfare Canada. The study sponsors (funders) had no role in the preparation, approval, or submission of this manuscript.

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g366

Mdln, thank you for saving me the effort of trying to look up the answer to Carol's question (with no guarantee of success). :-)

What is amazing to me is that this FRAUD has been allowed to continue so long.

@Alisande, easy for me to do; have a medical library at my fingertips. Happy to help and for people to become informed.

Thanks for the information.

Coincidentally, this landed in my Inbox this morning:

Plus-size model says doctors dismissed her cancer symptoms, blamed her weight.

The emergency department is NOT the place for an accurate diagnosis and treatment plan for chronic low back pain. They are looking for acute life-threatening conditions (aortic aneurysm, spinal cord injury, etc.). Am confident she was referred to a primary care/ortho doc for follow-up and was not told "nothing to worry about." More likely she was told, "it MIGHT be your weight..." Did she follow-up? Probably not if she had 4 ED visits. Sounds like publicity seeking.

"Elly Mayday knew there was something really wrong – she had severe, persistent lower back pain that was powerful enough to send her to the emergency room four times......... Mayday, 27, tells PEOPLE."

Good point, Mdln. Publicity could definitely be a factor.

Well, yeah. It's a professional model in People magazine. But the story sounds real to me, even though it's Canadian, not US. Doctors don't listen to women, let alone overweight women. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. There are many studies about this and medical schools are supposed to be trying to change it in future doctors, but the old ones teach the young ones that everything that is wrong with a heavy woman is due to her weight because they're just not interested in them as people with other health issues.

The model said she knew something was seriously wrong. Rather than prescribing exercise, they should have referred her to a back specialist to see what was causing the issue and determine if exercise could help, and also to see if her weight were an actual causative factor. If so, she should have had some sessions with a physical therapist to teach her to do the correct exercises correctly, and perhaps a nutritionist if weight were an issue and she needed help losing it. However, exercise doesn't fix cancer.

She obviously did follow up because she eventually got diagnosis and treatment. Perhaps as a young, previously healthy woman, she didn't pursue it aggressively because she believed the doctors who told her it wasn't serious.

I don't blame her for being ticked off that it took her so long to get a proper diagnosis and treatment, and for being annoyed that people just saw her as unfit, therefore the author of her own pain.

Completely agree, many health care providers do not listen to patients.

However, standard of care for ED discharge instruction is referral. Many people do not understand the ED is not a 24-hr doctors office. It is a great place if you are having a true emergency (e.g., MI, stroke, allergic reaction, major trauma, lac that needs repair, etc). We are are not designed to make cancer type diagnosis that often requires testing not available 24/7/365.

When I began my education, many years ago, if we could not make a diagnosis we often admitted pts for further testing. Insurance companies no longer pay for that. Out-patient testing & even surgery has become the norm.

In this case, would like to hear to other side of the story, the doctors version and medical records - before making a judgement.

Also, by going to the media vs an attorney makes me think perhaps attorneys turned down her case because her medical records did not support her claim.

I've only read the article posted. Was she making the kind of claim that leads to a suit? Not just sharing her pain about the cancer? That whole celebrity thing of my problems will help people? I thought she did go to her regular physician, too. That the emergency room was about the pain so bad it needed urgent attention that happened four times because her regular doctors didn't find anything wrong, but maybe I misread it? Whichever, there's a big difference between a proper discharge of "take this for the pain and see your physician Monday morning", or "we're going to have to send you to a specialist", and "you're fine, you're just fat", no matter who said it to her.

In the US, at least, emergency rooms are also for a lot more than strokes, heart attacks and traumas. It's for broken bones, major cuts and burns, etc. Too many people also go there because they have no other access to health care, but that's changing with the new insurance structure. I had a small wound on my thumb that wouldn't stop bleeding on a weekend, and which was beyond my knowledge of first aid. I heard them in the emergency room (small hospital, not a trauma center) arguing over who would have to treat it because it was boring. The guy who did had to be reminded that it had to be cleaned first. He had some sticky stuff I'd never heard of that gives the clot something to form on. He could have just handed it to me and let me do it myself and the result would have been better. I've been to the major hospital emergency room recently with elderly relatives, and they have a much better culture, and were fairly compassionate and quite able. There's more to medicine than racking up interesting cases however.

As I understand it, she has a very rare form of ovarian cancer. Missed cancer diagnosis is a common cause of litigation.

I hope her intent is to send the message - get a second, third, fourth opinion if you need to. Things, all too often, get missed.

BTW - that is the most common medical advice I give. As I think about it, related to personal friends, I know more men who suffered from a serious missed diagnosis. Women tend to seek medical care sooner and more often than men. JMHO

I had to go to three gynecologists before I found one who was willing and wanting to help me. I had a fibroid tumor in my uterus and endometriosis. I took Lupron injections for 3 months to shrink the tumor. I then had a myomectomy. Two years later it was back and so were the side effects. I chose to have a partial hysterectomy. I was so thankful to find a doctor who would listen to me.

Re mammograms, I had my family physician refer me for my first one when I was thirty. I think the recommended age was 35 then. I had felt a lump and it worried me. A lot. I have fibrocystic breast disease. The last two times I've had a mammogram I've had to have a follow up. That meant a 3 hr drive to St. Louis for about 15 minutes to have another one. I was worried sick the first time. The second time not so much. Still worth it for my peace of mind.

I know this was originally about mammograms, but did you know there is a similar controversy about the utility of the bimanual pelvic exam? I love that some of the reasons given for why doctors think they still need to do them are "our patients expect it, it makes them feel cared for" and "we need the income."

An Exam with Poor Results (NY Times)

As for mammograms, I've never understood something. If you get a questionable result, they send you for an ultrasound to get a better view. So why don't they just do ultrasounds in the first place, especially for someone who has had a previous false positive due to "folded tissue" or dense breasts. No radiation, no discomfort; seems better to me.

"Completely agree, many health care providers do not listen to patients."

I'm on a board asking about health providers and they asked to say in one word what is most needed from doctors at the place I frequent. "Listen". I wasn't the only one who said it. It was one of the top three most suggested change. I know doctors are busy, but I think they might create more work for themselves if they don't listen. Do it right the first time? I know I've recontacted them when my problem doesn't resolve and I still need help. Just a thought.

That same one word is also a reminder most patients need too.

Snidely, that'd work if the MDs were a bit more blunt... SOMETIMES. It's ironic when i accompany my mom on appointments and "translate" for her. The physician always laughs and says YES! That's it! I can be blunt because she won't fire me. I realize they can't, but it's what some need. To hard to decipher who can handle it. I get it.

Better communication is needed, both sides are at fault.

From the doctors' side, rob, one of the biggest complaints is patients who don't follow the advice and treatment plans given them. Who don't take prescribed meds and fail to start or stop various voluntary habits as directed by the doc.

Related and also very frustrating are so-called life style afflictions - conditions that come from being overweight, having poor eating habits, having inadequate activity, smoking, drinking too much, etc., You know the drill.

Patients need to listen better and not choose to ignore what they dislike.