Why GWB Didn’t Get Evidence-Based Care

Unnecessary stress test:

If Bush had visited a general internist practicing sound, evidence-based care, he would not have had cardiac testing…What value does a stress test add for an otherwise healthy 67-year-old? No study has shown that this examination improves outcomes.

Unnecessary stent:

[H]e will have to take two blood thinners, aspirin and Plavix, for at least a month and probably a year…While he takes these medications, he will have a higher risk of bleeding complications with no real benefit.

Source: Dallas Morning News.

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tim says:

    I think evidence-based practice is good as an indicator, but the doctor’s should then use their own judgement based on their knowledge of the patient’s health history, etc.

    • Sam says:

      That’s a good point. It would then become a supplemental indicator doctors can look at inside a comprehensive analysis of the patient’s own situation. Forcing the practice universally and ignoring other factors then can cause issues, like mentioned on this post.

  2. Saul says:

    “Few facts are known about the case, but what is known suggests the procedure was unnecessary”

    -Sounds like this is all speculation

    • Carl says:

      Saul, I agree.
      One might say that this post was “unnecessary” given what is actually known.

    • Qwerty says:

      “It is worth noting that at least two large randomized trials show that stenting these sorts of lesions does not improve survival.”

      • Qwerty says:

        “While he takes these medications, he will have a higher risk of bleeding complications with no real benefit.”

  3. Sammy says:

    I’m confused… How is speculating about the necessity of a former president’s healthcare operations relevant? He has the best doctors in the world, why are we making assumptions?

  4. Buster says:

    I like the idea of research on what seems to work and what doesn’t work well. But, evidence-based medicine as it’s currently conceived is a way to find the most common denominator and provide cookie-cutter health care that is optimal for many but ideal for only a few patients. While they’re at it, why not place us in large hospital wards with bedpans and only a thin curtain to protect our dignity? After all, we’re all the same aren’t we?

  5. Linda Gorman says:

    Evidence based care because it is about balancing population risk versus screening cost.

    Presumably President Bush was more interested in minimizing his personal risk.