‘Googlopathy’ is here to stay
THE other day, a doctor used the term ‘Googlopathy’ during a conversation with me. It was not difficult to guess that the term referred to the Google search by patients about ailments, treatments and drug side-effects and the subsequent exercise of putting questions to doctors on the basis of the ‘knowledge’ gleaned. Medical practitioners, however, in general, are not comfortable with the trend.
A Google search led to several definitions of this term. The most interesting was: ‘Googlopathy is the most modern branch of medicine where the patient prescribes medicines to his doctor!’
In India, patients are generally unaware of the preventive, diagnostic and curative aspects of illnesses. After providing basic information and asking a few simple questions, they accept whatever the doctor prescribes. To them, the doctor is next to God!
However, the advent of the Internet and search engines such as Google has changed the scenario. Educated patients have started questioning doctors. The questions are based on information obtained from various sources, including Google. Health supplements of various newspapers, too, play a part in making the people aware of illnesses and their prevention/cure.
The rights of a patient include the right to information (RTI). The April 2024 Patient Safety Rights Charter of the World Health Organisation lists it at No. 7 among 10 rights — right to information, education and supported decision-making. India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released a charter of patients’ rights in 2018; RTI was placed at the top. The National Human Rights Commission has enumerated 17 rights of a patient; RTI finds a prominent place among them.
An informed discussion between the doctor and the patient remains elusive in India due to three key reasons. First, questioning a doctor is against the tradition prevalent since ages. Second, medical practitioners are short of time; they cannot afford to engage in lengthy talks with patients when scores of others are waiting for their turn. Third, and this is most important, the patient is unable to separate the wheat from the chaff among the plethora of information gleaned by him; hence, many a time, his queries are not only irrelevant but also silly. No wonder doctors, busy as they are, are put off by such patients.
During my interaction with renowned doctors over the past 50 years with regard to my ailments, I found most of them open to an informed discussion, leading to a positive contribution to proper diagnosis and treatment.
There is no turning back on the era of information and knowledge. ‘Googlopathy’ or whatever you may call it, the patient’s right to information ought to be accepted and respected.
