When I added some comments to a syndicated article by Dr Ford Vox (I wonder if one can get a convertible model) over five years ago, I little imagined they would be considered worthy of note by a company as august as the authors this article. (Per 'Table 3', I am 'Contributor4 T48'.)

I thought back then, as I think now, that what is 'difficult' about the wish of patients to have recordings of their consultations lies in the psychology of doctors, not their patients. For reasons many, various, and to an extent understandable, medicine is a profession which has developed without the notion of always providing full, accurate, and prompt written advice to its 'client-base'. Compare, for example, going to see a lawyer who might spend a meeting with you giving very important and detailed advice, which you needed to consider with care before taking a decision as to which course of action to choose; but at the end of the meeting the lawyer says, "Of course, I will not now, or probably ever, confirm to you much, or probably anything, of what I have just said, in writing." You would be best advised to run a mile and find another lawyer.

Recordings of medical consultations by patients immediately and effortlessly remedy an habitual but potentially serious deficiency in communication, and should be welcomed by medical practitioners. However, following the subject online as I have now done for several years (noting on the way many of the 'texts' cited by the article), I find the reflex resentment of a significant number of doctors remains all too apparent, and while sometimes risible also sometimes more grave. In one instance, a doctor commenting on a sensible article written on behalf of a leading UK medical indemnity provider, claimed he would have to consider whether any patient who wished to record thereby revealed him-\herself to have a 'mental disturbance' – and could he 'work' with that? Physician, heal thyself.

( http://www.themdu.com/gui...)

It was scarcely visionary of me to claim five years ago that 'easy digital recording' was not likely to 'go away any time soon', but sadly, in some medical quarters, the 'growing up about it' I also advocated is still awaited. When patients are sure of a mature and helpful reaction from doctors to overt recording, I think covert recording will greatly diminish - but not until then. This article bases its conclusions on researching the net. Patients do likewise, and while they may find many contributions pointing out the usefulness and legality of recordings, they will inevitably also find some hostile reactions from members of the medical profession. Patient conclusion = record covertly.

I wish the physician authors here every success, and hope to see more of their researches on this topic online in future. The time when doctors and patients alike look back and wonder what all the fuss was about (of course patients should be entitled to record their consultations if they wish) cannot come soon enough.