Adverse Effects and The Patient's Perspective

When adverse effects, particulary those associated with medical errors, are reported to the public, shock and disbelief echo throughout the nation through media outlets. Despite the explanation for the perceived adverse effect, public outcry drives the outcome of the fate of those involved. When things go awry, public pressure is on to  find the responsible party, assign the appropriate blame, reprimand the individuals and take great measures to ensure the situation never happens again. The precursor to this could have merely been the patient's believe that an adverse effect has happened without one actually having occurred. This type of media attention based on the patient's perspective may prove to be detrimental to the reputation of all parties involved.

In the case of clinical trials of phamaceuticals, one of the main objectives is to perform a series of tests to determine the efficacy of the drug in comparison to a variety of possible side effects. Participants are asked to take the medications under certain conditions and their responses are documented and presented to the public using satistical data. In this controlled environment the patient's perspective as to whether an adverse event has occurred is most important to the ultimate outcome of the testing.
The fact that a drug has a mild adverse effect may not necessarily cause the drug to be rejected, there are some acceptable side effects that, when documented, allows the user to understand the risk associated with its consumption. There is no drug advertised on television devoid of mild adverse effects. Individuals understand the risks and make their determination for use based on the perpectives of clinical trial participants.

Sometimes the perspective of the patient that an adverse effect has happened can bring about changes in medications which are currently in widespread use. The firestorm surrounding the outcry proves the patient's perspective to be the most important determinant in creating a need for adjustments to keep consumer confidence intact. In the case of the Measles, Mumps and Rubella inoculations, mothers were adamant that there was a correlation between this vaccination and the increase in autism. Despite clinical tests showing otherwise, the mercury that was used in the shots were removed in an attempt to ensure that inoculations were received at the appropriate times thereby decreasing the possibility of an outbreak of these diseases. Pressure was applied on the drug companies based on a perception that an adverse event had happened.

In conclusion, a patient's perspective as to whether an adverse event has happened can be welcomed in controlled environments but cause mayhem when it takes on a life of its own. In these scenarios, the patient's perspective as to whether an adverse effect had occurred was the most important factor in the way careers were handled, drugs were marketed and perceived harmful ingredients were removed from a required inoculations. The patient's perception was the most important driving force behind the subsequent actions causing harm or perceived good in various situations.

Nicole Thomas-Tate