Fw: Teamwork?

[Guest guest]

I copied this from the AN board; I like the way this gentleman writes, and

thought his comments might be of interest.

-----Original Message-----

>Over the years I have seen lots of discussion, sometimes heated, on AN

issues.

>

>Does radiation carry certain risks or does it not? Are surgical risks

being

>explained to patients? Are patients getting the " right " information on

>options? What is the best surgical approach? The best radiation approach?

>

>I have seen surgeons characterized pretty negatively at times (downplaying

>surgery risks and passing " myths " about radiation). And I have heard

>radiation oncologists bad-timed too -- ignoring radiation risks or lack of

>proven control rates to capture market share.

>

>I was struck by something at a recent leadership meeting. A team of me and

4

>others was given a list of 10 questions. We had 3.5 minutes to work them

out

>-- they were all " story " or analytical reasoning problems that required you

>to think " outside the box " . When we checked our work against the answers,

we

>found that not one of us singly had gotten all the answers right. But as a

>team, we did get them all. As a team, we are stronger than individually.

I

>think that applies to families, businesses, regions, countries, and all of

>humankind.

>

>As to AN, different surgical approaches depend in part on goals and

>priorities of patient, location of tumor, etc. I don't think there is one

> " right " surgical option. Observation is certainly the right approach for

>many -- but it does not fit every situation. Radiation has a number of

>different applications. Fractionation may prove to be the best approach

for

>AN if long term control rates prove out -- but single shot gamma knife

would

>still be a magnificent tool for many disorders even if it falls out of play

>for AN.

>

>If you think of all the doctors and their specialties as part of a team, it

>may make sense that no one has all the answers -- but cumulatively the

>medical profession has amassed a great team to fight many of the variations

>of AN, patient situations, and so on.

>

>One member of a team does not have to be wrong for others to be right. It

>concerns me when one group or another of doctors seems to be disparaged.

It

>is not appropriate or helpful to new patients or anyone, in my opinion.

>Worse, it does not reflect a thorough or balanced view of the field and the

>goals of different approaches -- again in my personal opinion.

>

>A musician analogy might work too. A songwriter who always ended a song

with

>the note of b flat would be ignoring all the other choices that might work

>much better for the context of the song at hand.

>

>Or tools. I might want to use a wrench to shut off a gas valve, but I

>wouldn't use it in place of a screwdriver.

>

>Medical tools, like music, teams, or any other tools, are to a great extent

> " context sensitive " -- the best choice depends on a thorough evaluation of

>the situation. I hope these thoughts might be of help in particular to new

>patients seeking answers. There is no one right way, there is no way that

is

> " bad " or " wrong " , and there is no risk free ticket out.

>

>Best wishes to all,

>

> Minger

>Seattle AN Group president

>website at <A

HREF= " http://acousticneuromaseattle.org/ " >http://acousticneuroma

>seattle.org/</A>