Of late, we find practicing doctors writing articles on medical subjects in the lay press with the idea of educating and informing the public about health matters, especially with regard to the latest developments in the field of diagnosis and treatment. This is indeed a good turn of events as an informed patient is better able to take care of his or her health compared to someone who is totally ignorant about health matters.

In fact many very common diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure or even heart disease are better managed if the patients who suffer from them are educated by their doctors about what causes these diseases and what aggravates them and how they should modify their lifestyles to manage them better. A large amount of money, both public and private, that is often wasted in seeking and providing expensive treatment can be saved by encouraging people to acquire knowledge about prevention which costs almost next to nothing.

Moreover, since medical science is advancing by leaps and bounds and every day that dawns has something new to offer, it is good if patients have an opportunity to gain some knowledge about the latest treatment options available to them. In this regard, it is good if both the print and the electronic media provide slots that give members of the medical profession regular opportunities to address and also if possible interact with the public.

But writing about health matters with the idea of educating the public is not without its own pitfalls as such writing can often come under suspicion by patients and even by professional colleagues that it is being done to promote the services of the writer. This probably explains why I have chosen to write more about non - medical matters despite being a practicing physician and a regular writer too!

In the recent past, many disagreements used to often arise on this issue between members of the medical profession, with some feeling that such writing was unethical and with others feeling that it was necessary for public good. Thankfully, in a landmark judgment, the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Dr. N. K. Bhagawan versus others, has recently ruled that practicing doctors can write to educate the public about health matters and health services available at various centres and also to update the knowledge of their own professional colleagues who may not have easy access to teaching centres.

While I believe that outright advertisement by hospitals and doctors, which is sadly being resorted to by some of them these days, is unethical and improper, educative writing by doctors is necessary for public good. I am particularly glad that here in our own city practicing doctors have of late started writing such articles almost regularly, especially in Star of Mysore. I can say that along with the writers, Star of Mysore too by encouraging them, is rendering a great service to citizens and its readers by disseminating information that can improve their health. The popularity of such writing with the readers is evident from the many requests that I get from members of the public to write about medical matters regularly basis every week apart from my regular column which deals with health related topics only occasionally. When a doctor with good medical knowledge and a flair for writing writes about any medical matter it is not necessary for other members of the medical fraternity to feel insecure, as they sometimes do, that he or she may be promoting himself or herself. This is especially so if the writer happens to deal with a subject that may not be from his or her own specialty or field of work. As long as the information provided is scientifically correct and useful to the people, no wrong is committed, irrespective of who writes it.

However, there is a new breed of medical writing which distresses me much and of which I disapprove strongly. I find that many doctors and hospitals these days regularly give press releases in newspapers which highlight their outstanding successes. In the past only very unusual and difficult medical cases, successfully treated against great odds, especially by using some novel or revolutionary technique used to be talked about in the lay press.

But of late I find that much publicity is being given even to the routine successes that should be the natural outcome of the very expensive treatment that is offered by most super specialty hospitals. The sadder part of this trend is that very often many of the patients whose recovery is spoken of highly in the press will actually either be convalescing in a less expensive hospital close by or will be struggling to come to terms with their disabilities, both medical and financial.

I have at least half a dozen living examples of such cases which have been talked about highly as landmark successes by the treating hospitals. Not very long ago, one such patient was lying under my care in a semi-comatose vegetative state on the day the success story of his revolutionary treatment and remarkable recovery appeared in print. Unfortunately, the publishers and editors of newspapers who carry such stories in good faith have no means of verifying the exact medical conditions of these patients.

It would be better if newspapers exercise some caution in this regard and insist on an interaction with the patients and their relatives before clearing the press releases for printing.

Hospitals and doctors should be modest about their achievements and should talk about such cases in the lay press only after they have first found a mention in reputed medical journals or medical conferences. Secondly, they should realise that publicity should never be allowed to take precedence over real performance and should ask themselves twice if what they wish to talk about is really a landmark medical achievement likely to be acclaimed and endorsed as such not just by the lay public but also by their peers. Otherwise, in their attempt to polish their own image, they will only end up tarnishing the image of the entire medical fraternity.