Ah, the classic "why is this email a meeting"?

Subject: You're dying. Message: 2-3 weeks. Cancer. Please see attached invoice.

Literature is more complex than that supposedly comic sketch. People is expressing all kind of really complex feelings since a lot of time with written language so that wouldn't need to be a problem. Is not a fair comparison.

Some people would prefer a theater of acting sad, holding your hand and pretending to be an old friend in a strange environment, other would prefer to receive the hit at their home and cry in private. Each people is different.

As the physician doesn't get to know the ins and outs (emotionally, not physically) of a person, they have to adopt the approach that they hope helps the most people.

You're on to something, but have it slightly backwards.

"First, do no harm."

Physicians, at least in Western medicine, are bound to the principle of non-maleficence. Their obligation is to take the approach (by action or inaction) that does the least harm to most people, NOT what helps the most people. This is an important, but subtle distinction.

This principle prevents, e.g. administration of a treatment that would cure 51 of 100 patients of a chronic but not debilitating condition while killing the other 49.

It's hard to imagine the quantifiable positive ill of telling someone something in person that they'd rather receive in email. But the underlying principle here is not in helping as many as possible but, overall, hurting as few.

There is great irony in your comment, given the topic. You are literally advocating for an approach based on not actually knowing the patient and going off of generalities. You aren't wrong, but it is...weird.

I think it's realistic - the physician doesn't know you as a person. They care about you as another human being but not on a personal level, and don't have the time or the emotional energy to get to know you. Really, I'm just advocating for a return to the conventional approach which the article is saying they should have followed. I'd say the "wheel a box into a room to tell people that someone is dead" approach is a bad one.

I get it - but I still believe that mimicry of concern is less desirable than actually HAVING concern. I'd much rather get bad news from someone remote that has concern than from someone in-person that doesn't. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to wait for an in-person meeting with a diagnosis hanging over my head if I can find out sooner.

Yes, but sometimes things are more complex. I know physicians that were assaulted with a knife in their workplaces. A bagcase raised in the last second stopped the hit, aimed towards her heart. Some people could have solid reasons for acting like that.

I'm confused as to your argument. Are you saying that because someone was attacked that means they SHOULD be emailing this news? I'd bet that most people , being social animals, would rather be told in person, face to face. One outlier doesn't change standard operating procedure.

I am saying that the physician could have logical reasons also to act like that, and that we could be missing some context.

After begin attacked by an enraged patient (or their relatives) I can understand how the physician could develop a phobia to put him/herself in a similar situation again. Just being forced to return to the same workplace day after day can be emotionally draining and very difficult for the physician.

The biggest problem of using e-mail in this case is keeping the privacy of the patient.

You're building a narrative that doesn't exist in the article - there was no mention of a previous violent incident leading to this.

This was just them pulling a stupid, and the hospital apologizing for it.

Not only is email not able to be kept private, you also can't guarantee the patient is going to get it in any sort of timely manner, or in fact, at all. It's also ensuring that no follow up questions can be asked in a timely manner.

Imagine if this got snagged into the Spam folder.

It'd be prime material for a Tom Lehrer song involving lawyers, malpractice law, ISPs, IT professionals, email protocols, and similar related ilk. Just this simple "proposal" is blowing my mind.

I know ads are already kind of doing this, but I look forward to google definitively knowing you have chlamydia before you do, or the first "Experiencing Heart Failure? This stay at home mom beat it in these 3 simple steps" banner ads.

When my friends parents had to get the unfortunate news that their sons body was found, the police drove to their home to give them the bad news in person.

The news was going to hurt one way or another, but they appreciated that other humans empathized with their situation, taking a completely less efficient means of giving them the information directly.

Granted, it's different than hearing you have a terminal disease, but both are jaw-dropping, numbing realizations few people could be mentally prepared for, especially with the swelling of emotions.

Perhaps there is no 'right' way, but IMO there is a humane way.

Honesty doesn't seem to be at issue here. Empathy definitely is. And while I take your point that you'd prefer an email, and I guess a degree of privacy with your own emotions on the topic, I can imagine that many people feel otherwise. I think I find myself in their camp, not yours.

@polly "bad news by email?" "hell no" "just post it on twitter"

As someone who made the professional healthcare to tech career crossover, I feel exactly the same way. Email me.

The world has changed. People are tried and sent to prison over video chat, surgeons remotely control surgery.

Telemedicine improves the quality of life for millions of people, allowing them access that they wouldn't have had in the past. It provides decreased morbidity and mortality as a whole.

Quick reminder: everyone is dying. everyone.

Email is wrong because the culture has decided it so, and doctors are judged based on how they exist within the culture.

As are we all.

It may not be the right way. We use it because some people need to hear it from a human. Given it's a fairly difficult thing to elect the method, we seem to have defaulted to humans being the best tool for telling other humans they are going to die.

Is this a joke? It's terrible.

This is not a joke at all, and was not an attempt to offend people's feelings, though it appears i did.

I truly do not understand why people want doctors to be required to hold hands and make eye contact, when telling there's no cure. I'd prefer doctors to be chosen based on their ability to cure illness, instead of the ability to demonstrate empathy to thousands of patients that will die during their career.

And i wonder how many of the people who are outraged by lack of the empathy from a doctor, also think that extending human lifespan to several centuries is a bad thing

Dear [TEMPLATE_NAME], We're sorry to inform you that you have advanced stage cancer and will die in the next [TEMPLATE_TIME_RANGE]. Good news however. We have partnered with FinalResting! Be sure to click on the following link to save up to 25% off your funeral services.

Yes that works