“As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...”
Sacha held up her hand.
“Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.”
---
Education attempt, and rejection of such education, in three sentences. After previous education attempt (plus a pamphlet) and rejection of such education.
Doctor attempts to educate in a format of his own choosing. Patient rejects. Doctor then rejects patient.
Normally when something doesn't work, you look for reasons why it doesn't work. You then take some educated guesses at what might be blocking success, and try altering your approach. After some trial and error, you eventually discover how to make it work.
This doctor-patient situation is the same kind of thing, except that the doctor is simply dismissing the patient because his attempts at education on his own terms have failed. He makes no attempt at figuring out WHY the patient is rejecting the education, nor does he try altering his approach. Instead, he ram-rods what in his own opinion makes the best education down the patient's throat, and then has the gall to blame the failure on her.
It's just like in the bad old days of web apps with no UX.
You still haven't answered the basic question: What else could he have actually done, given that the woman wasn't interested in having a conversation - just the answer to a yes or no question.
If the other party is unwilling to have a conversation (to the point where she attempts to leave when he won't give the binary answer), there simply is no way to "look for reasons why it doesn't work". The doctor shows his willingness and interest in having a discussion at the end, where he supports her asking of a non-binary question. What's most unfortunate in this tale of what it took to get to the patient to that place.
By the time she's in the doctor's office, there's not enough time to undo all the damage. The doctor cannot change her mind in a 15 minute visit, let alone build up her trust.
This is a false dilemma. It takes time to fix this sort of thing. Unilaterally shutting her out is probably the worst thing the doctor could do.
> Unilaterally shutting her out is probably the worst thing the doctor could do.
Really? That's what she has done to her doctor. She's chosen a life of potential suffering and death for her children because she wasn't paying attention. If someone has ignored the internet ads, billboards, magazine reports, news articles, and their own doctor, they're not going to change their tune just because someone prettied up the message bit (even though that's exactly what people have been doing for years now, plenty of examples if you look for them).
In the end, I think shutting her out is the best course of action in this story, if only for the children. And for her - it's shaken up her life enough to make her start asking interesting questions.
No, it's worse, the doctor overrules the patient forever because patient can't science.
There are good arguments for compulsory vaccination (excepting legitimate medical issues). On the other hand, this essay is horrible. It's a doctor's fantasy of magically shutting up All The Stupid People That Don't Listen To Him. If Sheldon did this on Big Bang Theory it would be played for laughs because of how outlandish it is.
Sacha held up her hand.
“Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.”
---
Education attempt, and rejection of such education, in three sentences. After previous education attempt (plus a pamphlet) and rejection of such education.
What more should the doctor have done?