TO INTERVENE OR NOT TO INTERVENE

INTRODUCTION Working as a doctor in Spain I have observed a huge difference concerning our attitude on how interventionist we are when it comes to diagnosing; comparing to the respect we show for patient’s autonomy when it comes to make prevention. METHOD In our practice, if we have a suspicion of a primary lung tumour, we will hospitalize the patient, give empirical antibiotics in case it is just a pneumonia and, if the clinical picture and the radiological abnormalities persist, we would start the research of the tumour and its anatomo-pathological identification, making use of invasive techniques such as fibro-bronchoscopy or PCNB (percutaneous CT-guided needle biopsy). As little invasive they may be, complications do sometime occur. However, when it comes to prevention and health promotion by motivating patients to quit smoking, which is a much less harmful and much more effective initiative to help lowering primary lung tumours’ incidence among others, we seem to be much less interventionist. I have observed a trend in health workers to accept everybody’s behaviour even if it is dangerous for their health. What could be the reason for it? An insufficient time assigned per consultation in our public health system and the lack of health workforce could be part of it. CONCLUSIONS I think that a more intensive training in “changing-attitudes techniques” for doctors, as well as a solid knowledge and a strong believe on the importance of these interventions to take place and to be successful, could lead to a better approach in prevention.