Google knows more about certain diseases than physicians ever will

Professor Gunter Dueck, is a calm and eloquent german mathematician who’s also the CTO of IBM Germany. He studied mathematics and philosophy and eventually turned out to be a great writer and speaker. Unfortunately he only does so in German, which is why it doesn’t make much sense to post a video of him here.

In a recent talk he gave (German only), he talks about whether a connected and information-based world is a nightmare or a dream come true. Near the end of the talk he picks up the topic of what a connected society, what the Internet and what ubiquitious information means for certain jobs, in particular for contractors or service providers like lawyers and doctors:

You are more and more disapointed by professionals who live off their knowledge, whom you’ve always trusted and whose expertise you’ve considered to be untouchable.

Now the Internet gives everyone and extremely powerful tool to research even the most complex medical knowledge. Be it Map-Kinases or the different types of leukemia. It is simply amazing (and to some of us, slightly discomforting) that such highly specific knowledge which was only able to be acquired going through several years of med school is now freely available to everybody. And it changes things.

The problem is that Google knows more about certain diseases than the average physician will ever be able to learn and hold on to. The shift from knowing something to knowing where to get it from is changing the way medicine is being practiced, because mature patients start to demand things and no physician really likes that fact because it takes away our sovereignity. This cannot be generalized, but take surgeons. You will never be able to become a surgeon by reading wikipedia articles, but the patient now has the option to research different surgical procedures for her medical problem. A quick Google search, a peek into a meta-analysis found in PubMed and consulting some online forums will give you a good understanding of how the surgery is going to be performed and whether there are different kinds of procedures that might fit for you specifically. Now the patient can question the physicians choice – and so they do.

The angst created by this trend is understandable, yet (probably) needs to be accepted on the long run. We as physicians need to find ways to differentiate us more and more. Wearing a white coat and having a lot of knowledge is simply not enough to prevail. Experience and specialization are elements that make a good physician in the 21st century, but if you agree with the fact that it’s more important to know where to find information, rather than having it all stored in your brain then this ultimately must result in the fact that medical education must change radically.

Would you agree that all the information you learn throughout medical school can also be found via the internet? If so, then it also becomes clear how the Doctor 2.0 can differentiate herself from the Doctor 1.0. It can’t only be knowledge, but also:

  • Empathy
  • Time
  • Respect
  • Guidance
  • Decision support

That’s going to be ultimately at least as important as having knowledge (if that’s not already the way it is, but nobody really talks about it) and what will define you as a “good” or “not so good” doctor in the patients eyes. We are not saying the elements above have not been important until now, but they are becoming more important than ever.

Lukas Zinnagl is a physician and co-founder of MedCrunch, an online magazine covering health, medicine, entrepreneurship and technology all centered around new trends and the challenge of being a physician.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

email

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Babalola-Olalekan/1087328891 David Babalola Olalekan

    Interesting. But hardly discomforting. I have never felt uncomfortable when my patients try to discuss diseases with me, after they have researched them on the internet. In virtually all cases I have come across, the patients don’t know much. I am not trying to suggest that they didn’t roll out a bunch of medical terms, but the fact is, they never really impressed me as “competitors” to my medical knowledge and skill.
    It is one thing to read a watered down version of medical knowledge on Google; it is quite another to understand it and be able to apply it to the issues at hand. Kind of like reading about your car’s transmission; it doesn’t mean you can do jack about its repairs. Most patients only know enough to be dangerous, both to themselves and to their caregivers. As a matter of policy, I discourage my patients from using medical jargon, because, more often than not, they confuse the meanings. I think it’s OK for patients to be well informed; but not OK when they think they know more than their doctors; they don’t.

    • civis isus

      Your patients aren’t trying to compete with you – engaged patients like these are trying to understand you, to work with you, to augment you.

      Don’t feel bad Dr. Olalekan; most doctors conceive of this phenomenon in just the same absurd fashion you do. Responses like yours used to infuriate me, disgust me; only recently have I realized that you and your similarly obtuse peers are simply deficient in your understanding of your own clientele.

      Physicians would do well to guide their engaged patients, help them understand how to discern authoritative information sources, and craft questions for you about information they gather that help them, and you, incorporate their thirst for information in your joint quest for optimal care for their health.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.marcus.ca Jonathan Marcus

    I’m a physician from Toronto.  My thoughts are somewhere between Dr. Olakan and the author.  I agree with the author in that all information is findable on the internet.  However understanding context is another thing.  Certainly when the diagnosis is already made, the internet is more useful for patents.  Patients do not have our years of experience and they of course cannot be objective about their own problems, so yes they need a guide (us physicians)… but one that can help them find and interpret the knowledge they need, and not defensive, territorial, and paternalistic physicians.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=558041620 Vikas Desai

    People are getting no smarter, you still need an education  to understand the info being presented to to put it perspective. People have no desire to use their head unless absolutely neccessary. They have no clue what they are reading half the time.

  • Anonymous

    Our patients will Google, and our job may be transformed to suggesting medically appropriate sites, teaching them what a probability means ( if the rate of cancer is doubled, but that risk was 1 in a million…)  using the recent Pertussis epidemic in our area as a consequence of non immunization. 
    I don’t agree that” people have no desire to use their head unless absolutely necessary”, they need the education to learn how to learn, just as we did.They may not become experts, but may be able to give you the data , if explained why, to help them.
    Medicine is always a partnership- after all , patients live in and  own their own  bodies. Our job is getting them on board to do their part- which is, after all, the hardest part.

  • http://onhealthtech.blogspot.com Margalit Gur-Arie

    This information was previously available in its entirety at the library. It was rarely watered down though, so patients who had the drive, commitment and intellectual ability to go through the scholarly monographs and journal articles may have gained a decent level of understanding of their problem. Of course, there were very few patients like that. I think this holds true today as well.
    What Google University does, is to create the false impression that one can speak intelligently about quantum mechanics after 5 minutes of reading something on the web, including other people’s opinions on the subject, which are then freely parroted in conversation (crowd-sourcing of the thinking process). This is not limited to medicine, and in many places true expertise and formal education are being challenged by superficial knowledge of nothing about everything.
    If all doctor 2.0 has to offer is empathy and guidance, then might as well go seek medical advice from a priest.

  • Chris OhMD

    The problem with Google, algorithms, maths and data is that they can be so removed from the essence of what makes medicine medicine – i.e. at the end of the day a human (patient) will want to talk to another human (physician) when it comes to something as personal as health. Sure there are many online venues where patients can get info and a lot of these sites are very smart, however too many people (who have every little understanding of medicine) assume that algos with replace humans.

    Why do you think Google Health failed? – because it had too much math, algo, data and too little humanity.

  • http://www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice Robertson

    I think this is great….open minded thinking….a willingness to understand that there are different methods to use as tools.   I tend to think a truthful patient (not always easily accomplished without truth serum:) and a type of Dr. Google analyzer would do a better job of diagnosing the intangible mind than many psychiatrists. 

    I can understand the investment doctors have made….their frustration with weeding through internet information patients now bring to the table…but it’s just too marvelous to be so empowered.  Doctors can rant all they want, but patients are interested….some are desperate….and speaking as the mother of two kids who have/had cancer it’s amazing how often doctors are wrong.  At our last visit the doctor became introspective and said he needed to be honest with us….the previous doctors had lied to us….I, literally, thought  for a moment I was going to pass out.  I then, meekly, thanked him for his honestly….it is what I value….and need.   He treated us as a unique patient, not a number or quotient…..that I actually can get from a computer….and it does figure in.

    Let the computers do what they can and doctors do what they can.  Doctors can offer us so much more…and it’s the “more” of that we want.