Medicolegal Second Opinion

In an ideal world, where medical care is given with honesty and integrity by practitioners who are well-trained and keep their skills and education current and evidence-based, when complications or disappointing results occur, patients will have been prepared for that possibility.

Sometimes, however some part of that recipe is missing, and expectations and reality aren’t matched, and so the doctor-patient relationship starts to fray.

In these circumstances, an honest, impartial opinion may be all that is needed for a patient to be reassured and continue with their doctor to address whatever is needed.

Elsewhere in the world, where malpractice litigation is common, a second option by a rival has become a source of division in the profession, as colleagues vie for fees and reputation. New Zealand has ACC legislation and virtually no scope for medical practitioners to be sued for monetary compensation, so this aspect is much less of a driver here.

Regardless, if ever I do suggest an alternative treatment, I make a point of not being the surgeon who treats that patient myself if possible. In this way, there is no possibility of a conflict of interest because of the opinion I give.
An honest impartial option is a service to patients and colleagues alike.