Abstract
In this paper I examine the relationship between benefits, harms and evidence-based medicine in the context of British primary healthcare. First, I will examine: ‘What is a benefit and what is a harm?’ Second, what should we know about where the balance of risk and benefit appear to lie? Third, what should we do with this knowledge, particularly in the context of the biopsychosocial gaze of primary care? I conclude that even perfect knowledge about benefits and harms requires to be translated in the context of the individual patient: it also requires to be interpreted according to what that persons’ wishes are.
Why this matters to me
By reiterating again and again how biases are stacked in favour of recommending treatments and interventions well beyond their rational evidence, my hope is that more honest medicine will result in less but higher value medicine. Stopping doing things that don’t work, or work rarely, or come with an unacceptable burden of side effects or appointments should make room for the pleasure of practicing medicine.
Key message(s)
| • | Even perfect knowledge about benefits and harms requires to be translated in the context of the individual patient: it also requires to be interpreted according to what that persons’ wishes are. | ||||
| • | In the real, messy frontline world of general practice, we will always have uncertainty about where the balance of risk and benefit might lie. | ||||
Acknowledgements
A version of this paper is published in the Handbook of Primary Care Ethics, (2017), eds. Papanikitas A and Spicer J, CRC Press, Abingdon. The author has retained copyright in agreement with the Editors and publisher of the Handbook.