Sorry, But I Can’t Help You

The title of this article is indeed misinformative. It cannot be true that the brain circuits associated with empathy are suppessed in doctors. Empathy makes us social, it makes us humane; what is a doctor if not social and humane. The title should read, "A study shows doctors tend to rely more on logic than empathy when treating patients" -- that is, if the study was even conclusive.

Brain science is most definitely the wave of the future and will show us that nearly all human expression, including religious, is caused by genetics. That is why the first ever GREAT AMERICAN GOD-OUT! is about to take the world by rational storm on Nov. 15th. Delusion out--rationality in! Help preserve the human species by knowing what it is! Drlydia

Brain science is most definitely the wave of the future--it will demonstrate to us that nearly every human expression, including religious ideation, is a product of genetics. That is why the first ever GREAT AMERICAN GOD-OUT! is about to take the world my rational storm on Nov. 15th, 2007. Dearest Jerry Adler is most definitely invited. (Google "the great american god out") Preserve the human species the best way we know how--with knowledge. Sincerely, Drlydia

There seem to be 2 very significant issues in this article: a successful cancer treatment and the ability of physicians to empathize. The title of the article is misleading, especially since Dr. Davis isn't even a physician.
Newsweek needs better writers!

What is misleading is the confusion between empathy and empathic concern. The study by Dr. Jean Decety at the University of Chicago show that physician regulate their empathy (defined as an automatic resonance between the other and the self) which can lead to personal distress. It is because physician can regulate this response that they can have empathic concern for the other and be of assistance.

As a physician, I see empathy as an indispensable part of the makeup of a good clinician. What would interfere with my work, and would make me ineffective, would be sympathy with a patient's plight. We must be able to develop a rapport with our patients, and this requires that we be seen as good listeners, and compassionate individuals. Sympathy, meaning sharing fear and pain with the patient, would be a paralizing influence, and would prevent us from applying our knowledge in a logical way.

The article was a disaster - shame on you MSNBC.com, don't you know anything about branding? However, the topics are excellent (yes, there are multiple topics, each deserving of a thorough examination) and worthy of investigation.



bandi when I onoi

Back when

A fairer way to state this is that in the group of doctors studied (which is likely not representative of all doctors) the brain circuits associated with empathy were suppressed. Many of us use empathy every day in our work. Patients and their families do, however, need to understand, that we need to have a little distance for self protection or we suffer from caregiver fatigue which becomes an especially acute problem in cancer physicians (and I am one). We aren't trying to our closeness, we just have to separate a little so that we can be objective and give patients our best judgment.

A fairer way to state this is that in the group of doctors studied, the brain circuits associated with empathy were suppressed. Many of us practice empathy as we work, but there does have to be a degree of self protection or we suffer from caregiver fatigue which leads to burnout and errors. Patients and families need to understand this, especially among cancer specialists (of which I am one).

I agree, the title to this story is clearly misleading. An article about an important breakthrough in cancer research should deserve an appropriate title. The question of empathy among doctors is an interesting one and also deserves to be adressed. The last question in this article is unfair to both the Caltech professor and to physicians. Maybe it's MSNBC and Newsweek who lack empathy?

The primary question is this; How much money is spend on cancer research yearly.How much money is given and donated to cancer research centers?What would happen to all these institutions if a complete cure for cancer was announced today?How many research doc/tors, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly for cancer studies, are suddenly going to be put out of work?Are we really looking for a cure or for more treatment options so that the money keeps coming in?

An interesting piece covering all but what's purported in the tabloid-style title a byline. I suppose the science bio has been covered in-depth because there's a Noble prize involved, but this is irresponsible. You can't skim a newspaper anymore.

An interesting piece, with a totally misleading, tabloid-style title and byline. The MSNBC site is becoming rife with examples of this. You can't skim newspapers anymore.

A very superficial treatment of a horrenduous problem when viewed from the patient's perspective.