Read on Twitter
A thread on medics writing. DOI @doctor_oxford is my friend and I have, with my consent, been mentioned in her books and articles previously.
Yesterday, @doctor_oxford, a palliative care doctor who used to be a journalist and is also a best-selling author announced a new book.
Yesterday, @doctor_oxford, a palliative care doctor who used to be a journalist and is also a best-selling author announced a new book.
Almost immediately medical twitter was filled with bile about how awful a thing this was. Tweets were screenshot and pile-ons invited. Which has made me think about their arguments:
Firstly they seem to have a problem with doctors talking about cases publicly. Without their consent. Which of course would be a problem if this is what medical authors did. But of course if they actually did do this the GMC would probably remove their licence.
So it’s a pretty odd argument. I suspect none of the critics have actually read any of these works because they all make it very clear that details of cases are changed or cases merged together to protect anonymity. So I don’t really understand why they have a problem with this.
Secondly, there appears to be a problem talking about death. Apparently this is ‘mawkish’. I don’t know what that word means. But it seems odd to me in 2020 that we are not allowed to talk about death, particularly in the midst of a pandemic.
Are we to only talk to people about death at the point at which they are dying? Is it only doctors who are allowed to talk about death to their patients in private, leaving the rest to the statisticians?
Medics continually flag that society not talking about death makes it very difficult for people when they are dying. Surely anyone who can narrate this issue well is of benefit to our profession.
Surely the best person to do this is someone who is trained in writing and has critically well received work. Be great if they were also trained in paliative care. Rachel is demonstrably very good at writing about these things. She has packed out book fairs, and her writings are
often centred on the patient and the patient experience. She has done an untold amount of good with this work IMO. Again, I don’t really understand why people have a problem with this.
Thirdly there appears to be a problem with someone making money from ‘other people’s stories’. Well, those who have a problem with this are going to be shocked when they hear about journalism and non-fiction writers.
Journalists have been telling stories from our profession for centuries. Some of these stories even talk about death, are really bad, and show up our errors. Some are good news stories, and demystify medicine, making a visit to the doctor less shrouded in mystery.
I think this is a good thing and I think people who spend hours, days and weeks working on them should be paid for their work. In the same way that I think someone who does private work should be paid for it and, if a dr decides to bake cakes and sell cake books, pay them for it.
There appears to be a specific problem that writing about death is ‘profiting’ from it. People who are concerned about this are going to be shocked to find out that doctors get paid to provide palliative care.
Presumably the intensivists who complain about this profiteering give up the proportion of their salary that represents palliative care. If they don’t, I really don’t understand why they have a problem with pay for work done.
Fourthly, there appears to be a problem with someone who is a doctor who also makes a second career out of being a journalist and author. Last time I checked, doctors are allowed to do what they want in their spare time.
Sometimes doctors take on second jobs that would only be possible through their work and training as an NHS doctor. Like private practice. Oddly, I don’t see a medic twitter pile on whenever someone does a private gynae list. So I don’t really understand this argument either.
The only common theme of all of these arguments is that medicine should be a closed shop. That doctors should be just doctors and they all know what is best for their patients and it should be discussed behind closed doors.
The only noble way to make money as a doctor is through your salary from the NHS +/- supplemental income from Harley street. I don’t agree with this argument. I think it is paternalistic and has no place in modern medicine.
Of course finally, there is the elephant in the room that Rachel is a woman and not a consultant. Why do I think this is an elephant in the room? Well quite simply because you do not see the braying mob go after Henry Marsh or David Nott when they announce new books
or write articles in the press. They do not lambast Adam Kay like this when he sells out a show based on his stories from medicine (further DOI I have never forgiven Adam for being better than me at comedy in the UH revue).
The critics and snipes also come in the majority from male doctors on twitter. So I conclude that these pile ons are at least in part centred around paternalistic misogyny that continues to pervade our profession. I’m really sad about this and it makes me quite cross
I find this all very depressing and had actually vowed to take myself off twitter after all this started but events over recent years have taught me it is important for me to call out this behaviour when I see it.
So there you are. Perhaps you might say it’s paternalistic of me to write a defence of a woman who is perfectly able to defend herself. Perhaps it is. I’m going to break from twitter now so don’t bother to reply and don’t @me. I won’t see it. END
