It’s basically the difference between being a grateful user of public services and being a consumer. This is the second opinion in Canada vs. the U.S.
When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I learned that second opinions aren’t really done in Canada, or at least not if you have confidence in your doctor(s). First I was diagnosed by my excellent family doctor, then sent to the breast care center for biopsies and further diagnosis, then to an oncologist at the local cancer program for more specific diagnosis and treatment.
As I understand it, it was a matter of the luck of the draw that I was paired with a medical oncologist (MO) who was caring, conscientious, and well-versed in the latest treatments. After all, I saw a lot of doctors (family doctor, surgeon, interventional radiologist, radiation oncologist, pathologist, etc), but it is the medical oncologist who is mainly responsible for my care and who has seen me often enough to likely be sick of me and the plaid flannel dress that I have come to favor, especially in cold hospital rooms.
An American friend who was treated for cancer locally many years ago explained, “Second opinions are not really a thing here. People will get squirrelly if you ask for one.”
And yet, all the Americans wanted to know if I was going to get a second opinion, as if not getting one would be irresponsible. “I’m pretty sure that the second opinion is that I still have breast cancer,” I noted.
But the fact is that only about 6-10% of breast cancer patients have metastatic breast cancer at the time of diagnosis (de novo). Being diagnosed at age 44 puts me well below the median age for breast cancer patients, an age where cancers are more likely to be aggressive, but patients are more likely to respond well to treatment. I read through the treatment guidelines and noted that they are the same for women with breast cancer, regardless of what age they are diagnosed or whether or not their cancer is de novo or a recurrence. It seemed to me that these variables introduced some wiggle room into the question of how to treat me.
In addition, we got convincing email from our American friends noting that for many American oncologists, a second opinion is a standard practice and a sign of having made a thoughtful choice when you do sign on for treatment with your oncologist. The principle of leaving no stone unturned as you think through what kind of diagnostic testing and treatment makes sense for you makes sense, even in the Canadian single-payer sensibility.
So we went to Toronto and met with a MO who has treated hundreds of patients like me, and she did not have anything new to suggest. We went full steam ahead with the standard chemotherapy treatment and, lo and behold, I did have a great response, even what is called “a complete response,” meaning that my cancer was undetectable. Until it wasn’t anymore, and I found out that I needed brain surgery.
Fortunately, my MO was supportive of getting a second opinion, something that a friend has suggested as generational. Under insistence from my parents and path smoothed by one of their friends, I scheduled an appointment with the excellent breast cancer team at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston for right after my brain surgery last November.
To cut to the chase, how did I process this question of whether or not to get a second opinion? And why does no one seem to talk about it, at least in Canada. Here are some of my thoughts.
REASONS NOT TO GET A SECOND OPINION
- Treatment will be the same. If treatment for your condition is well-covered by clinical guidelines, then a second opinion will probably yield more of the same plans and decisions. The same is true for the diagnosis, if it is not likely to change or if the original testing is complete and thorough.
- Your case is going through a tumor board. Yes, it’s actually called that, when a lot of different doctors in a cancer centre get together and review your case. They talk through the ambiguities and everyone gets the benefits of multiple minds focused on the case. This is an example of how medicine can be a very collegial and collective enterprise, and of how you can have several different clinicians’ problem-solving applied to a problem without ever leaving home.
REASONS TO SEEK A SECOND OPINION
- Your doctor is a quack. Thankfully, none of my doctors have been quacks, and the world “quack” amuses me plenty. However, I think the specter of the quack hangs over any patient who wants a second opinion, whose doctor has to think, “Does this person think I am a quack?” while the patient is also thinking, “Does this doctor think that I think that s/he is a quack?”
- You are part of a fast-changing field. Knowledge about cancer is changing every day, and new clinical trials pop up every day. In many cases, those who seek a second opinion feel like they need to find out what the state of knowledge is elsewhere and whether their case would be seen differently there.
- Your case is somehow different or special. For me, I was diagnosed at age 44 for a cancer in which the median age is much older. Should the fact is that I am able to tolerate more aggressive treatment be factored in to my treatment plan? Should the extremely aggressive nature of my cancer?
Notice what is not on either of these lists is, “You have confidence in your doctor.” I assume that this is true either way, and I also assume that more than one good doctor might have different views on the same case. I am assuming, in short, that the doctor is not a quack.