"Defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability."
The definition seems quite precise, but it isn't. For instance, I had my daughter to a doctor with an insect bite that had bacteria in it, so it grew, it had an area of about 1-2 square inches by then. The doctor said: "I can give you antibiotics, but if you just remove the bandaid and let the area get air, it will heal itself". We chose not to get antibiotics, and it worked. However, I am quite sure, that most doctors would prescribe antibiotics for this. Is it defensive medicine to prescribe antibiotics? By the definition, yes. What was the cure? Don't use band-aids for wounds like this. Does this take a doctor? No, I should have known that. A nurse could have told me. Any system that involves a doctor wastes money.
Is it defensive medicine when a person automatically takes a painkiller for a headache? Well, according to the definition, it matches up to the comma. But since that person cannot sue himself, the rest doesn't. But it is seriously close to defensive medicine.
In my opinion, the "defensive medicine" can cover almost any standardized treatment, and the term is therefore useless. It may make sense in some specific contexts, but not when discussing the future of a health/health care system. |
