Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Doctor-Patient Relationship
Another reason healthcare on the internet is not good has to do with its effect on doctor-
patient relationships. To demonstrate, here is a hypothetical situation: Cindy uses the
internet to research symptoms she is experiencing. Cindy is able to find an illness that is
supposedly the cause of her symptoms using various websites available to her on the
internet. Cindy then continues to research the prescription drugs that should be used to
cure this illness. After this research is complete, Cindy visits a physician. Many things
could now happen. One situation, Cindy could refuse examination, and instead, insist the
physician prescribe drugs “A,†“B,†and “C,†for the illness,
“XYZ,†she found on the internet during her research. Not to say Cindy is incorrect
about the diagnosis and the drugs needed to treat that illness, but how can a physician
know. He or she must perform the tests necessary to be sure the correct ailment is
diagnosed. This could put a rift in the relationship of this doctor patient for many
different reasons. Cindy could choose to see a different physician, completely eliminating
the existing relationship, or when Cindy refused examination, the physician could
develop a negative feeling toward Cindy.
Another scenario would be the same situation of Cindy researching the internet and
visiting a physician, except Cindy allows the physician to carry on the exams and tests
necessary. After this occurs the physician begins to tell Cindy a completely different
ailment has caused her symptoms than the one she concluded from her own research.
Again, many problems could arise from this situation, as well, mainly the trust Cindy has
in her physician’s knowledge, not to mention the extra difficulty the physician now
faces trying to convince Cindy that what she found online is incorrect. What ever the
reason be, if Cindy begins to question the credibility of her physician, she is likely to
resort to treating herself.
A study done by the Health on the Internet Foundation shows that over half of the health
professionals (67%) agreed that there is a “risk of patient self treatment†(Analysis
of 9th HON Survey, 2005, p.2). The survey also found that 60.4% of health professionals
were concerned about the internet encouraging “patients to challenge a physician’s
medical authority†(Analysis of 9th HON Survey, 2005, p.2).
At least in the above hypothetical situation, Cindy visited a physician. Some would
choose to not do so. Instead these people could choose to deal with the sickness in their
own way. This will result in self-diagnosis, the above mentioned self-treatment, and will
likely lead to misdiagnosis. Such occurrences will only decrease the health of the
population, morbidity rate, and will most certainly begin to effect the death rate, or
mortality rate. Self-diagnosis is likely to happen, and this is not something to be ignored.
The difficulty experienced by the physician in Cindy’s case is another problem
related to internet health care. The physician is forced to prove that he or she is correct,
and the research that Cindy had performed is incorrect. How does Cindy know the
information her doctor provides to her is accurate? Cindy should know this because her
physician is educated, experienced, licensed, and certified. How can she know the
information she found online is correct? She can’t. This hits home with the main
problem of online information, especially health related information, when a person’s
life could be in danger. There is no way of knowing the credibility of the information
unless it is somehow regulated.
Lack of accuracy
Another problem with internet health care is its lack of accuracy. There is no way of
knowing whether the information you are looking at is credible. This problem has been
recently addressed by the Health Improvement Institute in an effort to try to come up
with a solution. The Health Improvement Institute is a key research source used by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality branch of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. One person best described this growing problem by stating,
“The plethora of health information and the slickness of its presentation make it
difficult for consumers to tell high-quality, authoritative information from high-
technology frauds and self-promoting cure-alls†(Quality of Health Information on the
Internet, 1997, p2). In a workshop conducted by the group for the entire healthcare
industry, the accreditation of internet producers was described as “an enormous and
costly task requiring a large staff with expertise in varying fields to monitor thousands of
health-related sites†(Quality of Health Information on the Internet, 1997, p2). Not
only is there too much information to even know where to begin regulating it, but it
would be a very costly task to take on by the government. Some of the other problems
that result from lack of accreditation include the health risks associated with
misinformation. The task of monitoring these health care sites to make sure they are
accredited and that they keep up their accreditation would be very hard to manage.
However, there were quite a few solutions that this workshop came to agree upon, such
as requirements of a system to tell fact from fraud, empowering consumers to evaluate
health-related internet sites, and industry standards and accreditation of internet
producers.
Lack of accreditation
Also connected with the problem of accuracy is a potential problem due to a lack of
accreditation. This creates a risk to the patient by not ensuring the privacy of online
health care. When someone looks up something health care related, as well as anything
else on the internet, they leave a trail that can easily be accessed by anyone with a
computer and a little time. This presents a problem because an insurance company can
also check what websites someone has looked at, and it could jeopardize an insurance
policy if the provider thinks that you may have a preexisting condition. In 1996, the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) were enacted to prohibit
things like this from happening. HIPPA protects a patient’s confidentiality of medical
records through the electronic submission of data, which includes information that is
transmitted via the internet.