This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

At best, placebos are a cop-out. At worst, they're downright deceitful

The sooner patients realise and doctors admit the limitations of medicine, the sooner we will get the demand for NHS services back on track, argues Dr Steve Laitner

When I heard Professor Clare Gerada and Dr Margaret McCartney on the Today programme discussing the news that three quarters of GPs ‘administer placebos once a week’, I was surprised. I am not sure I have never knowingly prescribed a placebo. I might have been persuaded by a patient to prescribe something I wasn’t 100% sure about – but that’s shared decision-making in practice. I am concerned about deceit of medicine at many levels.

I can understand why some GPs are tempted to prescribe when they think it may not be effective. It’s quick, and it gets patients out of the door faster than you could with an honest conversation, or at least it does for that consultation, but it also encourages help seeking behaviour and repeat attendances.

But at my surgery – where this week we triage 115 patients on the phone one morning – if we gave every patient a face-to-face consultation then we’d never give everyone the time they need. Most of the solutions to patients’ problems can be found in their history, and many of the problems they bring to GPs can be solved through information, reassurance, advice about self-care or over the counter treatment.

Strictly speaking, any treatment a patient doesn’t need is a placebo – examinations included. For instance, I would resist performing a chest examination in a child just because the mother wants me to do one.  If there is no clinical indication such as suspicion of pneumonia because of other features (such as chest pain, high fever, unwell, breathlessness), then I really don’t need to listen to the chest. To do so without an explanation as to why it is unnecessary would be deceitful. 

When you take time to explain why it is not helpful, then most parents are happy. You give them confidence to know when to be worried, and most of all when not to be. For the same reason most GPs would instinctively decline to prescribe an antibiotic, a viral URTI doesn’t need me to listen to them breathing. However, it still needs me to understand their concerns, inform, reassure, advice and most importantly empower to self assess and self care.

The ‘magical stethoscope’ myth

Placebos take power away from the patient and give power to the doctor. We begin to see magical treatments and examinations – the stethoscope that can hear a virus, or the antibiotic that can cure all infections. But this myth hurts everyone.

The sooner patients realise and doctors admit the limitations of medicine, the sooner we will get the demand for NHS services back on track.

I have said before that the NHS is a paternalistic institution. Like all professions, medicine is a myth-builder which relies on its own jargon and tools of the trade to keep a bit of mystique.

But the time has come to be open and honest about what medicine can offer, and what it can’t. We have so much opportunity now for patients to self-care, for everything from self-limiting respiratory infections to diabetes and hypertension, and it’s a big missed opportunity.

GPs are key patient educators, and the solution to demand is by admitting that sometimes it’s more effective if we don’t intervene. I myself have a long-term condition and just this morning, emailed my GP and consultant a few questions about my treatment while I travelled down to London on the train. Doing that was more time- and cost-effective than booking an appointment, and although I admit that I probably get a bit of ‘special treatment’ because I myself am a GP, there are a couple of doctors at my surgery who use email to communicate with their patients. The NHS has been incredibly slow at adopting new ways of communication.

We should always come clean with the public and our patients. To any GP who would defend placebo treatments and examination I would ask, why can’t we have an open and honest conversation with patients?

It’s my belief that it’s a doctor’s duty to be honest and open with patients, and that means cutting down on our use of anything with a placebo effect, examinations and treatments alike, it is a short-term solution and frankly a bit of a cop-out.

Dr Steve Laitner is the clinical lead for the Department of Health-funded programme on shared decision-making, and a GP in St Albans.

Readers' comments (11)

  • Spot on - it's about time we stopped colluding with patients and their dubious health beliefs, including all viral urtis need to be seen. We need a cultural shift along the lines of Steve's ethos. Excellent article.

    PS - we sometimes triage 160 on a Monday!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nothing is free. Answering an email may be very useful for the patients but they take the GP or consultant time It is another work stream that for GPs is not resourced as we are on capitation funding.

    Nowhere have I seen any offer to increase the number of clinicians so they can work this way. Do not say that responding to emails will save an appointment as it won't. It will be immediately filled by someone else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It might not feel like it but the need (ability to benefit) from healthcare is finite and demand would be if managed well

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The 115 patients triaged was just for the morning session

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Capitation payment means we have the financial flexibility to shift activity to highest value channels such as telephone and email in many circumstances

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Harry Longman

    Agree with Steve 100% - I have never prescribed a placebo. Maybe because I'm an engineer, not a doctor. As a patient I hope I have the maturity not to ask for or accept a placebo, though I understand that in some patients a placebo "works". The danger with this as you point out is encouraging health seeking behaviour, so beyond the very short term it doesn't work.
    This raises the point about demand. We have ample evidence that demand is finite, and the better the system is at dealing with demand, quickly and appropriately, the lower it goes and the cheaper it is overall. Yet the system often creates rework and overwork. Face to face when phone or email will solve the problem. A call to NHS 111 which generates another call to a GP. Seeing a different GP and going round again when the same one I saw last time would have solved the problem.
    We need relentlessly to pursue our understanding of demand.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All GPs are keen for their patients to manage what they can, themselves. Long gone are the days (at least for NHS GPs) when we could indulge the anxious wealthy with elaborate attention in order to gain their fees and maintain their custom, as described by Bernard Shaw in his preface to A Doctor's Dilemma.
    Why then do I hold my patients hands? Why do I go through a careful physical examination that lacks a rigorous evidence-base? How often do patients open up emotionally when they are undressed? Is an anxious patient seeking reassurance wasting a GPs time?

    The article above muddles a reasonable plea for GPs to empower their patients to care for themselves whilst relieving the pressure on appointments, with the very complex ways in which GPs and patients communicate. Balint described the doctor (GP) as drug, our interaction with our patients is a vital part of our ability not only to understand eachother, but to heal them. This is in great danger of being lost.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Balint was wrong......human contact is not a drug....and should not be mis/used as such.or the relationship will become inauthentic. As 'for colluding with peoples' dubious health beliefs' - seems a rather better understanding and certainly communication by Shaba might enlighten

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous is muddling the is/ought distinction. Human contact does affect those involved in ways that are rightly considered therapeutic. If you are of the conviction that they ought not be used in that way, you need to consider whether it is possible to have human contact without any therapeutic value. Perhaps there is, but only if we stop behaving like humans.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mark Struthers

    Professor Anonymouse said "Balint is wrong ..." Who are you to say that the guy was wrong?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say