Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 13, 2017

“Dr. Google” and his predecessors

  • Annemarie Jutel EMAIL logo
From the journal Diagnosis

Abstract

Background:

Contemporary medicine has expressed concern about lay incursions into the diagnostic process buttressed by commonly available medical information on line. Even while the world wide web is a new structure, there is a long historical precedent for this concern. With the emergence of scientific medicine in the late 19th century came a strong belief in the role of diagnosis, not only to explain disease symptoms but also to differentiate the physician from a range of other unreliable practitioners. Along with this focus on diagnosis came also a concern expressed by doctors about patients’ inclination to self-diagnose, or to propose candidate diagnoses for the problems that ailed them.

Methods:

This paper uses Zerubavel’s social patterning method. Using material written by doctors from the late 19th until the mid-20th century, I explore comments about, and attitudes towards, self-diagnosis.

Results:

Three areas of concern about self-diagnosis are expressed by doctors. First, self-diagnosis produces anxiety in the patient. Second, it interferes with doctor-patient relationship. Finally self-diagnosis is commonly linked to commercial interests.

Conclusions:

Contemporary concerns about self-diagnosis are part of an ongoing social pattern, which simultaneously promotes diagnosis as means for explaining disease but also protests when the diagnostic explanations originate with the patient.

  1. Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Crenner C. Private practice in the early twentieth-century medical office of Dr. Richard Cabot. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005:303.Search in Google Scholar

2. Hadra BE. The public and the doctor. By a regular physician. Dallas, Texas: J.M. Colville, The Franklin Press, 1902.Search in Google Scholar

3. Zerubavel E. Generally speaking: the logic and mechanics of social pattern analysis. Sociol Forum 2007;22:131–45.10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00010.xSearch in Google Scholar

4. Avery N, Ghandi J, Keating J. The ‘Dr Google’ phenomenon – missed appendicitis. N Z Med J 2012;125:135–7.Search in Google Scholar

5. Feke T. Dr. Google should be sued for malpractice. Here’s why KevinMd.com2015 [cited 2016 20 Oct]. Available from: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/08/dr-google-should-be-sued-for-malpractice-heres-why.html.Search in Google Scholar

6. Hesse BW. The patient, the physician, and Dr. Google. Virtual Mentor 2012;14:398–402.10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.5.stas1-1205Search in Google Scholar

7. Limb M. Technology must not replace human contact in drive for self care, conference hears. Br Med J 2014;348:g4278.10.1136/bmj.g4278Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Tyrer P, Eilenberg T, Fink P, Hedman E, Tyrer H. Health anxiety: the silent, disabling epidemic. Br Med J 2016;353: i2250.10.1136/bmj.i2250Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Doherty-Torstrick ER, Walton KE, Fallon BA. Cyberchondria: parsing health anxiety from online behavior. Psychosomatics 2016;57:390–400.10.1016/j.psym.2016.02.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Fergus TA, Dolan SL. Problematic internet use and internet searches for medical information: the role of health anxiety. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2014;17:761–5.10.1089/cyber.2014.0169Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Kim H. Trouble spots in online direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion: a content analysis of FDA warning letters. Int J Health Policy Manag 2015;4:813–21.10.15171/ijhpm.2015.157Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Lupton D, Jutel A. ‘It’s like having a physician in your pocket!’ A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Soc Sci Med 2015;133:128–35.10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Krecke A. The doctor and his patients. Lange F, editor. London: Kogan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1934.Search in Google Scholar

14. Anonymous. Commerce without conscience. Br Med J 1937;24:178–9.10.1136/bmj.2.3994.178Search in Google Scholar

15. Gersuny R. Doctor and patient: hints to both. Bristol, UK: John Wright & Co, 1889.Search in Google Scholar

16. Keith RD. Clinical case-taking. London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd., 1918.Search in Google Scholar

17. Lapham RF. Disease and the man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1937.Search in Google Scholar

18. Styrap J. A code of medical ethics: with remarks on the duties of the practitioners to their patients, and the obligation of patients to their medical advisers. London: J & A Churchill, 1878.Search in Google Scholar

19. Bainbridge WS. The Cancer Campaign Quarternary: the problem; the public; the patient; the physician. Am J Surg 1917;31:162–7.Search in Google Scholar

20. Little EG. Doctors and the public: an address delivered at the opening of the medical session at St. George’s medical school on October 1st, 1926. Foxton: Burlington Press, 1926.Search in Google Scholar

21. Brackenbury HB. Patient and doctor. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.Search in Google Scholar

22. Rector FL. Seven steps to the undertaker. Bull Am Soc Control Cancer 1936;18:1–5.Search in Google Scholar

23. Kreimer S. Dealing with Dr. Google: why communication is key ModernMedicine Network 2015 [cited 2016 20 Oct]. Available from: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/dealing-dr-google-why-communication-key?page=full.Search in Google Scholar

24. Goyder C, McPherson A, Glasziou P. Self diagnosis. Br Med J 2009;339(nov11_1):b4418.10.1136/bmj.b4418Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2016-12-5
Accepted: 2017-3-1
Published Online: 2017-4-13
Published in Print: 2017-6-27

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 1.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2016-0045/html
Scroll to top button