First, I have been educated in research design and interpretation (not medical, but applicable nevertheless). My education helps me to better understand and evaluate (not to mention, to proactively seek out and analyze) credible information regarding test results and the progress of my pregnancy. I've found that doctors don't usually share more information than is necessary to sway their patients toward the medically preferred* course of action. Therefore, if you want to make a wholly informed decision (one that is not biased by your doctor, the current medical fashions, or the pressures placed on the medical community), it's often necessary to seek additional information from outside credible sources to supplement what your doctor is telling you.
The rigid structure of prenatal care can make this difficult: the doctors often expect you to make your decision (read: to take their recommendation) at the same appointment, in which they provide you with the "relevant" (read: supportive of the medically preferred next step, ie shaded, one-sided) information. However, I've found that it's possible to delay just about any medical decision by at least one prenatal appointment and I do so frequently. It's a little frustrating for the doctors, but it gives me time to gather and evaluate all relevant information, thus making me feel more confident in my ultimate informed decision.
Second, I understand and feel comfortable putting my faith in statistics. This comes from both my research education and my many years of experience playing and analyzing poker hands. I understand that when there is a less that 1% chance that my baby will have <this>, the odds are pretty good (in fact, they are excellent) that my baby will not have <this>. In poker, if the odds are in your favor and you know this with a high degree of certainty, you (usually) continue with the hand you're holding. I don't see any reason why medical decisions should be treated differently.
Of course, I am less willing to gamble with my baby's life than with my money. But I find statistics reassuring. In the above example of 1%, I like my chances enough not to pursue further tests or, worse yet, to treat my baby with <choice of drug> in case she happens to be in the 1%. Especially in the latter case, 99% of the time I would be exposing a perfectly healthy baby to drugs where none are needed. This is something that I do not feel comfortable doing, but the doctors prefer it.
My medical team likes to cover all their bases and make even the most favorable odds better. In that interest, they err on the side of preventative care. When the doctors see that I am reluctant to take their recommended treatment because I "feel healthy" and/or I "like my odds" just fine, they don't hesitate to try different strategies for my manipulation. What works really well on a pregnant woman? Appealing to her (likely) emotionality and protective instinct. For example, they think that if they say something like "I've had a baby die because we didn't know to treat for <this>," then I will change my informed decision. I find this tactic to be under-handed and abusive, not to mention offensive. I imagine this works on a lot of expectant moms. However, thankfully, my rationality and faith in statistics are not easily rattled by proclamations like this.
As I already mentioned, my unique approach to receiving (read: critically analyzing and attempting to have a modicum of control over) my prenatal care somewhat frustrates the doctors responsible for my care. It also sometimes serves to make those around me nervous: how can I refuse treatment, am I being negligent, etc? Rightfully, people will form their own opinions about this. All I can say is this: I love my unborn baby (probably no less than or more than those who take a different perspective and approach to their prenatal care) and I am acting in what I believe to be (from intensive research and careful deliberation) her best interest.
* From my experience, doctors' preferred course of action (at least in pregnancy care) is usually interventionist with a focus on proactive prevention rather than surveillant with a focus (after the fact) on the identification of symptoms and prescription of treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment