Not what the doctor said

Not what the doctor said

Image: Pixabay.com

In 1976 two researchers, James Pennebaker and Deborah Sanders, published and interesting study. They placed two kinds of signs in university toilets, one reading: “Do not write on these walls under any circumstances,” and the other: “Please don’t write on these walls.” Result: the amount of graffiti on the walls with the first, more authoritative sign was significantly more.

This phenomenon is called reactance: when something or someone threatens to restrict our freedom, our intuitive response is to undo this – even if our response may have negative consequences.

Reactance can occur on a massive scale as, for example, in the case of Japanese whaling. The consumption of whale meat in Japan is decreasing – it is considered traditional food and younger generations are not interested in it. Yet, Japanese people respond furiously to the actions of the Sea Shepherd activists against their whaling fleet. Travel writer Sam Vincent, who wrote a book about this topic, concludes: “Japan isn’t pro-whaling. It’s anti-anti-whaling.”

AMA response to the ‘skin spot check’

This week a new pharmacy initiative was in the news: ‘Skin spot checks’. For $35 people can have a single skin lesion of their choice examined at certain pharmacies. The response from the Australian Medical Association was as expected. Dermatologist and president of the NSW branch of the AMA said: “It is irresponsible and inappropriate for pharmacies to offer in-store skin checks.”

Although the AMA has a point, the response can be: “If the AMA doesn’t agree, it should be approved.” Reactance in action! This may be followed by: “The AMA is probably protecting their members’ interests, so let’s give these entrepreneurial chemists a fair-go!”

If the AMA had said: “Look, doctors are busy and fed up with all these people worried about their freckles, so please go away and visit the pharmacy,” the response would probably be the opposite. I’m not arguing that they should have said this, but the point is that most doctors care about their patients’ wellbeing and this is unfortunately not always taken into account in the media and comments.

The following scenario happens often in my practice: a patient asks my opinion about a pigmented but benign skin lesion, and is not aware of the (more common) non-pigmented malignant or pre-malignant lesion elsewhere on the skin. These spots will likely be missed at the ‘skin spot check’ in the chemist store.

3 thoughts on “Not what the doctor said

  1. I wonder about who will be performing these checks and how. I imagine pharmacies will need indemnity insurance, or patients may need to sign a waiver. It just seems ill-advised to me! As with pharmacists wanting to be able to issue repeats of medications without further scripts, this concept ignores the fact that a simple ‘drop in’ visit to the doctor often picks up other issues or is an opportunity to address chronic problems.

    Like

    • Thanks for your comment Claire, I agree. I understand chemist staff take a picture of the concerning mole (if you want 2 moles checked you pay extra), and then email it to a doctor who looks at the picture and comments within a couple of days.

      Like

  2. and for 4 spots they could go to a dermatologist who will tell them there and then, biopsy or remove it immediately (talking Geraldton visiting specialists here) and they will get some of the money back!

    I’ve read about reactance before but didn’t know it had a name 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

I'd love to hear from you! Please leave a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s