Scientific Empiricism and Clinical Medicine
B. Livesley
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107688107401015
1981-10-01
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Abstract:Scientific empiricism and clinical medicine From Dr Brian Livesley Department of Geriatric Medicine St Francis' Hospital. London SE228DF Dear S1r, Professor Baum's discussion paper (July Journal, p 504) has important ethical and economic implications for clinical diagnosis and management far beyond the problems posed by his excellent consideration of clinical trials in breast cancer. • 'Conceptual rationalism' creates the need for facilities for many 'long-stay' patients by morbidly affecting the health care of old people. This is simply because those not so expert in their management still use, in wards and committees, the disparaging diagnostic labels of 'just old age', 'senility', 'social problem' or more generally 'geriatric', while they as blatantly and continually deny adequate expert facilities for the elderly within the district general hospital. Moreover, all of this occurs despite the knowledge gained from, and the evidence produced in favour of, active health care programmes for the elderly by generations of geriatricians. The creation of a 'long-stay', 'bed-blocking' role for many elderly and aged patients is becoming nay, has becomea national scandal and is the direct result of inadequate facilities, indeed, often none at all, for the clinical care of the elderly and teaching in far too many district general hospitals (particularly Teaching Health Districts). As Professor Baum has pointed out, the end result of 'conceptual rationalism' is a self-fulfilling prophecy which in this case means that 'long-stay' for the elderly can all too easily and inevitably lead to the stage when nothing can be done about it. The next phase of this unnecessary situation is when, as now, these 'long-stay' problems are promptly proffered by non-geriatricians as bones of contention for the graveyard of a non-existing clinical undertaker after their geriatrician colleagues' potential to help has been frustrated. This frustration is the direct result of a continuing 'no go' policy on effective decision-making that is again particularly evident in the Teaching Health Districts, where an obviously weighted and inadequate committee structure has a vested interest in high-tech,nology medicine. Professor Baum's paper is a timely stimulus to our consideration of what scientific empiricism has produced in clinical medicine today. The zenith of high-technological medical practice appears to be merely the ability to transplant some livers successfully into chronic alcoholics and some hearts into those who have smoked too much; neither of these achievements is, in my opinion, ethical nor economic. Meanwhile, the inadequacy of consultant 'conceptual rationalism' about the elderly not only denies more effective care to a large and increasing number of elderly patients, but also denies more effective training to those who inevitably will have t~ deal with still more clinical problems 'produced by the elderly tomorrow, next month, next year, and into the next decade. The essential reorganization now required within the National Health Service must link the real health care requirements of the community to those who are prepared to tackle the job properly; this would make both ethical and economic sense. Furthermore, it would be encouraged if clinical 'conceptual rationalism' was buried by the scientific spade of medical audit. Yours faithfully