Doctors like them never come around again. That's what someone commented on Facebook, about the status of a retired doctor in emigration. The latter respectfully remembered doctors of the previous generation, with whom he had started working in his early youth in Tirana almost half a century ago. I returned to the list of doctors mentioned in the status and noticed that most of them I had known from near or far, all surrounded with respect and gratitude by us, contemporaries.
Continuing to "browse" Facebook, a little further on I noticed a short status, only one sentence, but which had received a thousand or so likes. It said: "The decline of good people threatens today's world much more than global warming or economic crises."
Once upon a time, there were good and kind people, today they are either extinct or an endangered species. Goodness is an abstract notion and therefore difficult to measure. But the ability and effectiveness, so necessary for a good doctor, can be measured, even indirectly.
The doctors of the past, the word comes, had at their disposal the stethoscope, the scalpel, a few medicines not as advanced and tested as today's, which the mind would have brought less benefit and many more side effects. Come on, compare the valerian of yesteryear with the beta blockers that the cardiologist gives today. Or remember the former surgical interventions where the chest was opened or the skull split open, based on some symptoms, and compare all this with today's interventions without incisions, preceded and mediated by scans, resonance, etc.. And yet, today's doctors do not they are as good (not as good as they are not) than the old ones.
I posted the above text on Facebook asking my friends to help me, if I didn't explain this wonder, at least let's get together and find: is it a real phenomenon that stems from the reality of two compared times, or is it a product of psychology and a problem perception; said with a metaphor: it is related to the face, or to the mirror.
2.
Almost all commentators agreed that today's medicine in the developed world, but also in our country, has progressed and is nowhere compared to the medicine of the past. Changes can be found in all aspects, an early friend, a doctor, wrote to me, and in the following he listed achievements such as: accurate and quick diagnosis, based not so much on external symptoms, but on computer results; drugs of the last word of science, which you can find without much difficulty in the global pharmaceutical network; surgical interventions no longer rely on the doctor's senses and scalpel, but on the accuracy of computer technologies; medical protocols are quickly updated, guided by the experiences of the most advanced clinics in the world; new medical information is accessible and usable by all doctors in the metropolis or the suburbs of the globe.
All these, my early friend wrote to me, make us think positively about today's medicine, but in addition to them, two factors play special roles: the management of the health service plus the doctor-patient relationship. Seen through the eyes of my doctor friend, you can say that the new developments in medical technology, in medications, protocols, etc., today's doctors in our country and the hospitals where they work have made and are making them anywhere and everywhere, but the work is limping in management and especially in relations with the patient.
Most of the commentators also mentioned the latter, that is, doctor-patient reports. It goes without saying that a good part of them saw underhand payments, bribery, the use of the public hospital to 'drill water' in private clinics and predetermined pharmacies as the first reason for keeping these reports. It is difficult to say that all doctors and health staff are bribers, just as it is difficult to say how widespread this vice is, but one thing can be said for sure: corruption and bribery heavily color the public perception of today's doctor, for his figure and must have added points to the evaluations of former doctors.
There were also other arguments, only that in some cases, if you looked at them more deeply, they faded and relativized the super appreciation for the former. They, a friend wrote to me, followed the patient throughout the course of the disease, these people of today fill the prescription and pass it on to the next one. Probably this difference is not so much related to a lack of attention and dedication by today's doctors, as it stems from narrow specializations: the cardiologist sees his part, the urologist his, the orthopedist the bones and so on, and so on. Specialization is a great achievement because it enables more in-depth and competent diagnosis and treatment, but man sees himself as a whole and does not want to imagine it in parts.
Disa komentues i kundërvinin mjekët e dikurshëm dhe këta të sotmit në segmentin e vëmendjes, aftësisë për ta dëgjuar e kuptuar pacientin. Në një vështrim më të kujdesshëm edhe ajo që përmblidhet në etiketën ‘nuk të dëgjojnë’ ha diskutim.
Mjekët e dikurshëm e kishin bisedën mjet diagnostikimi, meqë teknologjia ishte e varfër dhe jo gjithnjë efikase, mbështeteshin shumë te simptomat. Kuptohet që një pjesë të mirë të këtyre mund t’i zbulonin nga biseda e vëmendshme me pacientin. Sot kur teknologjitë moderne diagnostikojnë me saktësi kompjuterike gjendjen e organeve të brendshme dhe shumicën e sëmundjeve, nuk hyjnë dhe aq në punë simptomat që përshkruan pacienti. Në këto kushte, mjeku mund të shfajësohej duke modifikuar proverbin e vjetër: unë shoh ujkun, ti më flet për gjurmët!
Njëri nga komentuesit nënvizonte informacionin mjekësor si një nga burimet e vlerësimit të lartë për të dikurshmit dhe prirjen për të nënvleftësuar të sotmit. Pesëgjashtë dekada të shkuara informacioni popullarizues mjekësor ishte i paktë, si të thuash jepej me pikatore, kurse sot vërshon jo vetëm në botime të posaçme, por ca më shumë në media e internet. Me pak aftësi kërkimi mund të mësosh sesi diagnostikohet e mjekohet sëmundja jote a e të afërmit tënd në klinikat më moderne të botës, ç’bëjnë e ç’këshillojnë mjekë të famshëm etj., etj.. Vetëkuptohet se në gjysëmterrin informativ të dikurshëm, doktori, qoftë ky edhe i provincës, shfaqej si qenie me areolë, besimi dhe respekti për të vinte e rritej edhe nga fakti se prania e sëmundjes rrit frikërat dhe pasiguritë dhe e shtyn njeriun t’ia shtojë vlerat mjekut edhe kur si ka në ato përmasa, mjafton që të qetësohet e të shpresojë. Në kushtet e sotme, pacientët dhe të afërmit e tyre, të ushqyer me informacion të bollshëm e alternativ kanë prirje të kenë vështrim më esëll e më realist për mjekun.
Vetëkuptohet specializimi i ngushtë i mjekëve, diagnostikimi i mbështetur shumë më tepër mbi teknologjinë dhe më aq në simptomat që tregon pacienti, bollëku i informacionit popullarizues dhe faktorë të tjerë dëshmojnë se marrëdhënia e sotme mjek-pacient ka arsye objektive të ndryshojë, por kurrsesi nuk e mohojnë domosdonë e komunikimit profesional e njerëzor me pacientin, respektimin e psikologjisë së tij jo thjesht si kërkesë etike, por edhe si mjet që ndihmon kurimin. Në këtë kuadër njeri nga miqtë përmendte sentencën “mjeku i mirë shëron sëmundjen, mjeku i madh shëron njeriun”.
3.
There were also commentators who saw the super-valuation of former doctors as an illusion or delusion. In general, nostalgia was talked about, but the phenomenon understood by this term differed from one commentator to another. One, for example, saw it as a purely political phenomenon, that is, nostalgic of the totalitarian past. They are simply victims of the old propaganda, he wrote, back then there was medicine, there were good doctors, there was education, there was industry, agriculture, there were even uncles, yes, good uncles, he was ironic. Needless to say, among those who overestimate the doctors of yesteryear, there may also be nostalgics of this category, but the phenomenon seems too broad and too timeless to wear such a tight suit.
A friend, a young girl, but quite up-to-date, sent me a podcast entitled "The Illusion of Moral Decline", a podcast based on the homonymous study by two psychologists, Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert, published a year ago in 'Nature' . According to them, the tendency to think that once there were better people than today, and that over time people become morally corrupt, is a phenomenon that has accompanied humanity from ancient times to the present day. With empirical methods, the two researchers had followed this phenomenon in 60 countries, over a period of almost 70 years, and everywhere they found the same tendency to idealize the past as well as cry for the current moral decline, a decline that did not only affect the following generations, but also peers. It goes without saying that the respondents did not see any moral decline in themselves...
According to two psychologists, in these cases we are dealing with an illusion created by the way the human brain works. So, we are not dealing with brainiacs or hallucinatory persons that the windmills take for evil giants, but with ordinary people and the illusion in this case is the result of the daily work of a normal brain. The problem arises from the fact that the human brain has a tendency to perceive the present and the past from opposite approaches.
When it comes to the present, strongly influenced by the media, people tend to see the bad things with priority. But when it comes to the past, the trend changes drastically. Numerous studies have proven that when remembering the past, a person tends to forget negative events or not relive them with the former emotional load. The opposite happens with positive memories, they become even more pleasant and memorable. This clash between exposure to today's evil and fondly remembered images of yesterday underlies what the two psychologists called the "illusion of moral decline."
Seen in such a broad perspective, it turns out that the super-appreciation "doctors like them don't come anymore" originates more from the mirror than from the face.