Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
OtherReflections in Family Medicine

Bandaging Society's Wounds: A Primary Care Perspective

Robert Cutillo
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2010, 23 (1) 121-123; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.01.090156
Robert Cutillo
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Our patients often carry heavy burdens into the examination room. With our standard questioning, we medically divide and define them into recognizable parts, but as pieces of a whole they resist healing. Can we regain a vision of health beyond the isolated individual to one who might belong to a larger community of concern?

I recently received a voicemail message that both surprised and disturbed me. A patient called to say that she was discharging me as her doctor. It had never really happened before in such a formal way. Although patients come and go, and their leaving is probably at times an indirect expression of rejection, this message was anything but subtle. Although I was partly relieved, given her dissatisfaction with my ability to help her, I felt the shock of an acutely ruptured relationship. I had “lost” a patient. Did I miss the diagnosis? Fail to treat what was treatable? Forget to listen and to communicate crucial understandings?

The details of the story are not unusual given our country's system of fragmented health care. My patient was 64 years old, morbidly obese, and in chronic pain at least in part caused by advanced arthritis in her hip. Although she would need to lose some weight before a surgeon would consider joint replacement, surgery was not an option because she had no insurance, at least for a year when she would become eligible for Medicare. She sat in a crack in the system. Because 70% of my patients are uninsured, I would think I would be used to it—but I never am.

My team and I spent several months experimenting with various combinations of pain medicines that could provide relief while remaining within our patient's budget. Because of a range of intolerable side effects we turned to a patented product. Although the patient could not afford it, an indigent care program offered the medicine at no cost if we filled out the forms and waited 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. The week the medicines were to arrive was the week my patient discharged me. From her perspective she had no other choice: the pain remained and therefore I had failed to fulfill my obligations as her doctor.

It would be easy to lay the blame on a broken health care system that often fissures and becomes a gaping chasm into which people fall. This patient's insurance status created barriers. But is it fair to assume all would be well if she had that little card that opens the doors to our vast and powerful medical establishment?

Our technology works so well when a broken part needs fixing. If not the next new medicine, then surely a new hip would solve her problems. But this patient's story was more complicated (aren’t they all?). She had a disabled husband, a lonely life, a relationship with food that was a substitute for a fulfillment of deeper needs. Weight loss was a worthy goal, so I assessed her stage of change and dutifully gave her the handouts. But underneath the superficial fulfillment of my obligations to recommend behavioral modification I knew she could not see the future with enough hope to begin to change. In context it is clear that hers was not just objective pain. She suffered at a level that resists measurement and remains mysteriously personal. Yet in so many cases we arrive at the default—unwritten but understood as a part of the contract—that the doctor will solve the problem and relieve the pain with the power of the pills at their disposal.

Deep down I feel something has gone wrong. When I committed to primary care 25 years ago, I looked forward to the privilege of working with people through their struggles and sicknesses. I never wanted to have expectations placed on me that I could simply erase problems. Yet now more than ever I feel the weight of that responsibility. From where does that feeling come? Is it because we live in a society that has lost the art of suffering because we think our advances make suffering unnecessary? Or have we, the medical profession, made promises we really cannot keep when we say that we can control—ie, vanquish—all pain? What medicine promises and what society expects seem to synergistically feed this ever-expanding myth that eventually loses contact with the daily realities of individual lives.

A few years ago my father was nearing the end of his life. He had had repeated small heart attacks and his heart was failing him, slowly but surely. Although his medical care alleviated much of his discomfort, he struggled for quite some time before he died. With a physician as a son, having excellent services, good health insurance, and many strong advocates, my family and I assumed the medical project would deliver on its promises and he would not suffer at the end. When this did not happen, I had to relearn the fact that medicine has limits, that not all of his distress was avoidable, and that his suffering did not diminish him but only enlarged his stature to all who knew him to the end.

What have we lost in medicalizing pain and suffering to the degree that renders it so completely meaningless, void of value, simply a symptom to treat and cure? In his 1976 critique of medicine,1 Ivan Illich said that we are capable of reducing the health of a society when we make pain a technical matter and assure its relief. If health is more than just the absence of disease but also includes the ability to “feel alive in pleasure and in pain, … to cherish but also to risk survival,” then our current view of pain and suffering is highly inadequate. To struggle, to risk, to endure, to overcome is—or ought to be—an important and necessary part of the human experience.

But we need a framework in which to translate these realities since they come to us as if in a foreign, unknown language. Illich emphasized the importance of culture because it alone can “make pain tolerable by interpreting its necessity; only pain perceived as curable is intolerable.”2 My patient lacked such a culture through which she could redefine her struggles with hope. At one point I suggested that our medicines could help but some pain might remain. As a person alone and suffering, I don’t blame her for finding this unacceptable. Although I tried one last time to reach out across the separation, I was not surprised when my letter of regret for the loss of our relationship brought no response.

It is a normal and natural human reaction to avoid situations in which demands exceed possibilities and “feeling overwhelmed” becomes a constant companion. Is this one of the reasons so many doctors are retiring at my age and so few new graduates are choosing primary care? It is exceedingly difficult to remain in relationships with patients who are struggling with life while feeling powerless to “deliver the goods,” so to speak, when those “goods” are the deliverance of the patient from life's afflictions.

I believe that we are fighting a losing battle in primary care if we continue to accept the status quo. We have historically not been that part of medicine that treats people as a sum of many parts, each one having a technical solution when it breaks. The whole that is the person always exceeds this sum, and the capacities to persevere and heal can surprise and amaze when one is understood as a fully connected human being capable of goodness and even greatness. What so often is missing are the threads that hold it all together.

As I reflect on the loss of my patient, Wendell Berry has offered a perspective on health that is helpful. He writes that “the community is the smallest unit of health and that to speak of the health of an isolated individual is a contradiction in terms.”3 Isolation is an unhealthy state of affairs. This is not such an amazing revelation, yet many of us practice as if it is big news. We meet our patients one-on-one but face realities that only make sense in the larger community in which we live. If this patient had been in a community with others who were overweight, others in chronic pain, others caring for a disabled loved one, or others who simply cared about her, maybe the pills would have been more helpful. Can we help and hope for expanded relationships that nurture and support those who come to us?

We who are primary care practitioners at the front lines can advocate for a larger view of illness that acknowledges the burden but explores the opportunities for healing in larger contexts that are not based on only a pill or procedure. Of all members of our society, we should see the limitations of a restricted and reductionist view of human life and call for more. This true and traditional primary care approach to health and illness can benefit all of us—patient, practitioner and the community at large—and help to sustain our specialty and underline its importance as reform brings health care in the United States into a new era.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: none declared.

  • Received for publication June 23, 2009.
  • Revision received September 14, 2009.
  • Accepted for publication September 17, 2009.

References

  1. ↵
    Illich I. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. New York: Pantheon Books; 1976: 128.
  2. ↵
    Illich I. Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. New York: Pantheon Books; 1976: 134.
  3. ↵
    Berry W. Health is membership; 1994. Available at http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berryhealth.html. Accessed 3 October 2008.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 23 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 23, Issue 1
January-February 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bandaging Society's Wounds: A Primary Care Perspective
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Bandaging Society's Wounds: A Primary Care Perspective
Robert Cutillo
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2010, 23 (1) 121-123; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.01.090156

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Bandaging Society's Wounds: A Primary Care Perspective
Robert Cutillo
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2010, 23 (1) 121-123; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.01.090156
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • To Feel Again: The Strength of a Support Community
  • The Minority Tax: Stories from Family Physicians
  • Person-Centered, Goal-Oriented Care Helped My Patients Improve Their Quality of Life
Show more Reflections In Family Medicine

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire