Uncertainty, Guaranteed

In most service industries, there are certain guarantees. If you go to a restaurant, your soup is guaranteed. At the GAP, you will get a pair of chinos, guaranteed. In lots of instances, you get what you are paying for and in most cases, you get to see if before you hand over your credit card—a coffee, a massage. In many cases, if you’re not satisfied, you can get your money back—guaranteed.

This is not the case in medicine. We cannot legally guarantee results. There are no guarantees.

Everybody and every body is different. Contrary to what it might seem like in our age of paralyzing fear of uncertainty, no one has all, or even most, of the answers.

Dr. Google makes it seem like we do, though.

When I see a new patient who is worried about their health and their future, I want to be able to promise them. I want nothing more than to say, “these breathing exercises will eliminate your anxiety, just like you asked for: poof! gone.”

I want to guarantee things.

I want to tell someone that, if they follow my instructions, they’ll never have another hypertensive emergency again. I want to, but I can’t. No one can. And our job is not to guarantee. It is to serve.

A $10,000 bag of chemotherapy pumped into your arm will not guarantee that the cancer goes into remission no matter how many studies show it has an effect. I can’t promise you’ll get pregnant, even though I’m doing my best, you’re doing your best and science is doing its best.

That’s all I can guarantee: that I will try my very best.

I can be your researcher, teasing out the useful scientific information from a sea of garbage and false promises—false guarantees from those who have no business guaranteeing anything. I can provide my knowledge, culminated from years of study and practice and life. I can sit with you while you cry and hear you share your story. I can let you go through your bag of supplements, bought in a whirlwind of desperation, and tell you what is actually happening in your body—something that doctor didn’t have time to explain. I have time to spend with you. We can have a real conversation about health. I can also make recommendations based on my clinical experience, research and millenia of healing practices. These recommendations will certainly help—virtually everyone sees some kind of benefit—but I can’t guarantee that either.

I watched a webinar on probiotics recently. The webinar sent me into a spiral of existential probiotic nothingness. I’ve been prescribing probiotics for years. I’ve seen benefits from them with my own eyes. Patients have reported great things after taking them and I feel better when I take them: my stomach gets flatter, things feel smoother, my mood gets lighter. Probiotics are wonderful. However, according to the research that was being presented by this professional, which he’d meticulously collected and organized, many things we thought about probiotics aren’t true. I’d have to change my whole approach when it came to probiotics, prescribing certain strains for certain conditions where they’d seen benefit. I remember feeling hard-done by by the supplement companies and the education I’d gotten at my school. How could we be so off base on this basic and common prescription?

At the same time, some skeptics were harassing me on Twitter, telling me that I’d wasted 4 years, that naturopathic medicine is useless and doesn’t help people. Besides having helped numerous people and having been healed myself, their words got to me. What if everything I know is as off-base as my previous knowledge on probiotics was?

The very next day, I called a patient to follow up with her. She’d kind of fallen off the radar for a while. She was happy to hear from me. I asked her how she was feeling, if she’d like to rebook. “I don’t need to rebook,” She told me, excitedly, “I’m completely better!”

After one appointment.

I was astounded and intrigued. Of course, we expect people to get better, but it takes time to heal, and I rarely go gung-ho on the first appointment, there was still lots left in my treatment plan for her. She’d been experiencing over seven years of digestive pain, debilitating fatigue, life-changing and waist-expanding cravings for sugar. It takes a while to reverse seven years of symptoms. It takes longer than a couple of weeks. But her symptoms were gone. She felt energized, her mood was great and she’d lost a bit of weight already. She no longer had cravings.

And she’d just started on one remedy.

Which was, you guess it, probiotics.

Sure, you might think. Maybe it wasn’t the probiotics, maybe she would have just gotten better on her own. Possible, but unlikely. She’d been suffering for years.

Ok, then, you say, maybe it was a placebo effect. Maybe it wasn’t the actual probiotics. Again, it’s possible. She’d tried other therapies before, which hadn’t worked, however and she “believed” in them just as much as the probiotic. And the probiotic made her better.

The point is this: we don’t know. Science is magical. People are magical. Medicine, which combines science with people, is the most magical of all. There are no guarantees.

The point is that anything can make anyone feel better: a good cry, a $10,000 bag of chemotherapy, journalling for 12 weeks or popping a probiotic. Some things have more research behind them. Some things we’ve studied and so we know some of the mechanisms for why things work. But we still have a lot of why’s and we always will. Everybody and every body is different. No two people or two conditions should receive the exact same protocol or supplement or IV bag or journalling exercise or cry-fest. We have no guarantees what will work or what will make you feel better. Just some research papers, some experience, maybe the odd dash of intuition or interpersonal connection and a firm resolve to want our patients to get better. And that’s a guarantee.

Quack Attack! The Naturopathic Docs are BACK! (Well, actually, we never really left…): An unofficial response to a scathing Globe & Mail op-ed)

Quack Attack! The Naturopathic Docs are BACK! (Well, actually, we never really left…): An unofficial response to a scathing Globe & Mail op-ed)

New Doc 11_1Sigh… I just finished reading a rather annoying article in the Globe and Mail (don’t even bother to click and add more Google street-cred, seriously) that doesn’t really warrant a response but… here we go. It’s my day off.

The article was written by one Carly Weeks, who doesn’t seem to have a very positive view of naturopathic doctors. I don’t know Carly and have no idea about her health history, but I’m going to take a shot in the dark and imagine she hasn’t suffered from chronic eczema.

Let me know how that steroid cream works out for ya, Carly!

But, ad hominem aside, her issue with naturopathic doctors this week(s)—pun intended, aren’t I hilarious—is, what else: we’re a bunch of quacks who use nothing but false therapies and smooth-talking to coax our patients into thinking they feel better. Well, if that worked, I wonder why more healthcare practitioners don’t try copying those moves too. It might save the government some money, which is what, coincidently, naturopathic medicine is already doing and it’s not by false therapies and smooth-talking. (But we do make time for a lot of talking).

The Globe piece begins with a story about how physicians (not naturopaths, for the record) prescribed radioactive water in the 1920’s. It’s a cute and tragic story about limited safety profiles. And other than its juxtaposition in an article about NDs, I’m not sure what the writer’s point was. We don’t use radioactive water to treat anyone. If you want radiation, which is a therapy, a cancer treatment, then you must see an oncologist. Talk about throwing out babies and bathwater.

The article is largely about how naturopathic doctors are moving under a new regulatory board, under the Regulated Health Practitioners Act. This limits our scope compared to that of provinces like BC or certain US states, where naturopathic doctors have been prescribing drugs and even performing minor surgeries safely where it’s warranted.

Here are some facts:

Naturopathic medicine is incredibly safe. We are trained in conventional diagnosis, anatomy, physiology, physical exams, including gynaecological exams, breast exams and digital rectal exams. We have the ability to perform acupuncture in Ontario and give intramuscular injections. With additional training we can provide IV treatments. We are trained to order and interpret labs and to take blood. I will not deny that conventional medicine and pharmaceuticals have saved millions of lives. However, we know that 10,000 yearly deaths in Canada (and 100,000 in the US) are due to pharmaceuticals alone. A year ago I wrote a post talking about the off-label birth control pill Diane-35. Let’s not start comparing safety profiles here.

Naturopathic doctors are highly trained and educated: We have completed a 4-year very rigorous program that includes a 12-month internship where we treat patients in an out-patient facility. In our training we performed over 100 practical and written examinations. After our second and fourth year we complete two licensing exams, which span a course of 5 full days of examinations combined. Ask anyone I know if what I did was easy. Trick question: they wouldn’t know because they didn’t hear from me for the past 5 years–I was studying the WHOLE time. It’s ok, though, because now I know a lot.

Naturopathic medicine is a regulated profession: In order to practice in Ontario naturopathic medical graduates who have passed both licensing exams, must pass a series of board examinations that are both written and practical. We then must enter into a month-long application process, which includes a police background check and character reference check. If I try to delay treatment of an emergent condition or treat an emergent condition with something like homeopathy or acupuncture (effective treatments for other conditions, but not emergent, life-threatening ones), which is something we are often accused of potentially doing, my licence will be removed. It’s not something we do—it’s that simple. We are held accountable and have a lot of responsibility to deliver safe care.

Naturopathic doctors are health experts: In order to complete the naturopathic medical program we complete 1200 hours of clinical training and 3000 hours of classroom training. This does not include study time for our board exams and pursuit of side interests or continuing education credits that are required to maintain licensure. We are trained in nutrition, which many medical professional, including medical doctors, are not. Naturopathic doctors often see patients that have been failed by the conventional medical system, which means we deal with complex cases on a regular basis. This demands that we keep our skills sharp and our knowledge current.

Naturopathic medicine provides the public with an amazing service that patients are willing to pay for: We spent up to two hours at time with our patients, educating them on any topic of their health picture: the medications they’re on that their doctors don’t have time to discuss with them, their health conditions, their prognosis and what else they can do about it. I spent half an hour talking about an STI a patient of mine had been diagnosed with. She’d seen two doctors and a specialist. None of them had talked to her about it. Patients have told me their doctors no longer perform physicals. Well, we do. And, it turns out, people pay for excellent care. Naturopathic medicine provides the much-needed service of patient education, human-centred care and prevention of disease. It’s an excellent complement to an effective whole-person healthcare strategy.

Naturopathic medicine works: I could say more on this but let’s keep it brief: if it didn’t work, people wouldn’t pay for it. The Globe and Mail, more than anyone should know to “let The Market speak.” (Amiright?) I lied, I will say more. If you don’t think naturopathic medicine works, then call my patients who no longer have chronic pain or allergies or chronic constipation. Ask my patient who couldn’t conceive how her daughter is doing. Blah blah, we help people.

Naturopathic doctors prefer to work in collaboration with other healthcare professionals: Ideally each patient should be managed by a healthcare team. When I start seeing a new patient I immediately establish a relationship with his or her medical doctor. I refer out for labs and to specialists if necessary. Medicine should be integrative, not alternative. Patients shouldn’t be forced to choose.

In addition to accusing us of being a bunch of unsafe quacks, the author writes, “Ontario should have created a regulatory system based on the principle of evidence first.” So, there you have it. Only medicine that is based in evidence should be regulated by the province.

Wow, what a ridiculous statement made by someone who I imagine knows little to nothing about how medicine and so-called “evidence” works.

Firstly, there is more than one type of evidence. In fact, evidence is a hierarchy. At the bottom we have things like clinical case reports or expert opinion, what my friends the skeptics love to call “anecdotal evidence.” Sigh. If you’ve seen something work, you keep doing it. It’s not the best evidence we have, but it’s still evidence. The better forms of evidence, randomized control trials, are being done on naturopathic therapies and naturopathic therapies have been found to hold steady. Actually, many of the therapies we prescribe are done precisely because there is evidence to support it: fish oil for depression and bipolar disorder? Inositol for fertility in patients with PCOS? Evidence, evidence, evidence.

Secondly, only 10% of medical guidelines are based on the type of “evidence” that our friend Carly Weeks is likely referring to: the Randomized Control Trial, which involves comparing two groups: a treatment group to an inactive group that gets something like a placebo. Well, it turns out, we just don’t have that much “evidence” of this sort to dictate what happens in medicine. A tourniquet for a bleeding wound? Using general anesthetic rather than nothing? These things haven’t been compared against placebo. What is the other 90% of medicine based on? Expert opinion: a nice mixture of clinical expertise, intuition, common-sense, “what the heck, might as well try it it couldn’t hurts” and research. I don’t see Carly questioning the use of SSRI for mild and moderate depression or beta-blockers to prevent cardiac events as a result of high blood pressure, both of which have “no evidence” to support their use. Nope, just crickets when it comes to those topics.

Thirdly, the father of EBM, or Evidence Based Medicine, himself, Dave Sackett, said, “Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannized by evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient.” (Emphasis mine). Individual clinical expertise from both modern and traditional medicine, the best available external evidence and tailoring treatments to individuals patients needs and preferences? Sound like naturopathic medicine to me.

Naturopathic medicine is safe and effective. We have a patient-centred approach and offer wonderful service for the cost, which is often covered by insurance benefits. Naturopathic doctors take the time to listen to your story and educate you on what is happening in your own body. We treat the root cause of your condition, rather than masking symptoms. We are highly-trained healthcare professionals and we are regulated. Soon we will be moving to different regulation. However, the government will be removing some of the rights we’ve had, which include ordering certain lab tests that we’ve safely ordered for years. If you use or support naturopathic medicine, please click the link to sign the petition to maintain the current naturopathic scope of practice in Ontario and support safe and effective natural healthcare for all Ontarians.

Quack.

Pin It on Pinterest