ShareThis Page

Doctor turned patient urges peers to treat patients better

| Monday, Nov. 20, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Critical-care physician Rana Awdish was used to helping dying patients, not being one.

Then she found herself in the ER, hemorrhaging nearly all of her blood.

By the time she left the hospital, she had miscarried and come near death. She endured five major surgeries, complications and months of recovery. Awdish, who was treated at her own hospital, emerged from her ordeal with a sense of shock at the way she had been treated by her fellow physicians.

Awdish's book “In Shock: My Journey From Death to Recovery and the Redemptive Power of Hope” (St. Martin's Press, $25.99) uses her harrowing health saga as the jumping-off point for a plea to physicians to become more emotionally sensitive to their patients.

When physicians doubt their patients, minimize their pain and label them “difficult,” argues Awdish, they harm instead of heal. And patients aren't the only ones to suffer from a lack of compassion. Awdish makes the case that physicians hurt themselves by turning away from the emotions that accompany life and death in their clinical practice.

Awdish challenges her peers to face down the ghosts of fear, shame and blame to create a more humane standard of care.

Awdish's story is grueling: a catastrophic miscarriage, multiple organ failure, the uncertainty that accompanies a sudden medical crisis. “In Shock” searches almost desperately for a glimmer of hope in life's darkest moments, and finds it. By moving toward the pain instead of away from it, she suggests, physicians can become even better at their jobs — and patients can find redemption in their deepest pain.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me