![]() |
Sir Robert Hutchison Father of clinical methods |
The American student, failing to see the point of such a laborious examination of a single patient, raised his hand.
"Professor, wouldn't it be better if we just send the patient for a chest X-ray?" he quipped.
That is the state of medicine now. We have lost the art of practising medicine. It is just about diagnostic procedures and laboratory results. Clinicians no longer use clinical methods to diagnose. If it used to be that laboratory and auxiliary tests were used to confirm or disprove our differential diagnoses, now it is the primary modality of the approach of a patient.
Pretty early in my training, I did an attachment in a Gynaecological Oncology unit. Its head, an old-timer Professor, once was in a dilemma. As part of the staging of cancer in his patients, he would perform a CT scan. This, he would do after carefully performing a complete clinical examination. The outcome of the scan would enable him to decide on the operability of cases. There was this particular cases where he was in limbo. He was unsure of the stage of cancer. After much discussion, argument and reevaluation, he was convinced that that individual patient had an early operable cancer even though scans were reported as otherwise. After much deliberation, he went ahead and assessed the patient under anaesthesia on the operation theatre. It turned out that the old Professor was correct after all. He proceeded with the surgery, and final histopathological specimen confirmed his clinical findings too.
That was how it used to be. Clinical acumen took precedence over laboratory and auxiliary investigations. Now, lab tests take precedence even over a good history taking. The recent Covid-19 pandemic is evidence of the above. Do the swab test first, then the clinician (or perhaps the technician) would decide the next course of action; whether to operate, treat conservatively or even see the patient. Just quarantine and see the outcome later - If he pulls through what was perceived as a death warrant.
A recent case that came to my attention recently during my work made me realised that perhaps we are too dependant on lab results. Maybe it is fueled by patient expectations of wanting an instant resolution (diagnoses) and fear of litigation. The need for an instantaneous gratification in all human dealings has permeated all social activities. We do not want our results now, but yesterday.
A 30-year-old lady presented with a two weeks delay of her periods. A urinary pregnancy test showed positive findings (i.e. pregnant). The couple presented at their doctor for a pelvic ultrasound scanning. The examination did not reveal much. As she was asymptomatic, she was told to show up in two weeks for reassessment but to return earlier if she felt unwell.
Just three days later, she returned with slight discomfort over her lower belly. HCG levels revealed 2000 IU/L. This time, a vague mass was seen just right of the uterus. A diagnosis of possible ectopic pregnancy was made and referred to a tertiary centre.
Based on the above findings, at the tertiary centre, Methotrexate was administered intramuscularly to medically treat the ectopic pregnancy.
Follow-up HCG five days later was 5000 IU/L; adnexal mass still present, uterus empty. After the first episode of pelvic discomfort, she had been symptom-free except for the anxiety caused by the turns of events.
Another three days later, HCG was 3000; still, uterus was empty, and the adnexal swelling persisted. The patient was well otherwise.
![]() |
© George Condous
|
Seven apprehensive days later, i.e. three weeks after her first consultation, much to the puzzlement of everyone, a small shadow was seen in the uterine cavity of what appeared like a gestational sac with a yolk sac in-situ. A diagnosis of heterotopic pregnancy (concomitant intrauterine and extrauterine pregnancy) was considered, and laparoscopic evaluation was considered.
Being confused with the whole turn of events, the patient decided to opt for 'wait and see' policy. A day after that, she passed out blood clots. She was diagnosed as had a complete miscarriage and was monitored periodically.
So what happened here? Did the clinicians place too much trust on biochemical results over clinical findings? Perhaps not. When the HCG levels are significant, with the presence of extrauterine shadows and an empty uterus in imaging, it would be negligent to just sit on it. Did the methotrexate cause miscarriage? Possibly not. A high HCG with an absence of visible pregnancy is itself a hallmark of abnormal pregnancy, including impending miscarriage.
In anything that the Covid-19 had taught us, it would be that everybody can be an expert. Armed with statistics and articles to support the assertions, anyone can insist on having found the elusive cure for the ailment. Clinicians, who by nature, like to err on the side of caution, had been accused of selling out the whole human race for self-interests. It seems PhD doctors got the panacea for all woes. Their data analyses and textbookish method of approaching disease make them excellent armchair critiques of what is wrong with the medical services in any country. We all know what happens in the field is not what is shown in laboratory experimentations. But still, it is a free world. Anyone can say what they want. The more one delves into a subject, the less he is cocksure about anything.

Like the 1927 movie Metropolis, everyone is just a cogwheel in the big machinery of modernisation. We are mere technicians doing our designated duties for the greater good of mankind as decided by the powers that be - the businessman. The future is not bright, either. After breaking down and digitising our individual tasks, our jobs may be assigned to artificial intelligence (AI). We will be redundant and irrelevant.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.