Doctors hold on medicine

To make an example closer to home, Toffler examines the control and prestige that doctors enjoyed not so long ago.  Doctors wrote prescriptions in Latin, “providing the profession with a semi-secret code” (20), which kept patients ignorant of the medicine they were receiving.  He goes on to mention that medical journals and texts were restricted to professional readers medical conferences were closed to the general public, and doctors controlled the medical school curricula and enrollments.  Toffler generalizes the control that doctors had on the medical field.  He could have used some examples of how this freedom hurt or confused the general public who had no idea what is going on.  Instead he allowed his readers to provide their own experiences with doctors to supply that information.  He later describes how the power shifts to the patients.  Patients have more access to medical information.  Toffler used examples of how Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is available to everyone.  Doctors, who once ruled over nurses and patient like demi-gods, are forced to give respect to their nurses and patients.  He explained that now “patients demand answers” (20) for their conditions, not platitudes, and nurses sue if treated improperly.  Toffler could have an example to demonstrate this, but he leaves the readers to parallel their lives with the essay.  His approach is not bad because he does allow his readers to become involved in the essay.

Toffler points out that the media, news, libraries, Internet, and magazines may cause this shift in power.  All a person needs is a personal computer and a modem and she can access databases “like Index Medicus, and obtain scientific papers on everything from Addison’s disease to zygomycosis” (20), and collect more information about a specific ailment or treatment than the “ordinary doctor has time to read” (20). Thus Toffler proves his point that the Internet enables people to shift power of their health away from the busy doctor to themselves.  Toffler also shows an a specific example of how a program intended to educate doctors is open to the general public on the Lifetime cable network with only a disclaimer that “some of this material may not be suited to a general audience” (20).  However, as Toffler points out “this is for the viewer to decide” (20), showing the lack of control that doctors now have about the education of medicine.  The press and the media also air segments about medical malpractice cases every night.  Libraries and bookstores carry books informing readers of what drug side effects to watch for, what drugs not to mix, and how to control your diet.  In short, Toffler has quite effectively described how the “knowledge monopoly” (21) of the medical profession has been smashed to smithereens, and doctors has descended from their godlike status.
 
Back to main