mostly It creates confusion to patient and doctor

I think the internet may provide sometimes conflicting recommendations ... only the doctor with his insight can drive the situation. However, the doctor must use the internet to improve his knowledge.

The internet allows communication between the patient and the doctor for follow up. Also, Clinicalkey is a good site. ClinicalKey is a medical search engine and database tool owned by medical and scientific publishing company Elsevier that offers access to the medical library published by that company.

I do not think this is because not all the medical information on the Internet is correct and reliable, and of course this is due to the source of the information and the website, as well as the most famous doctors often does not provide all the information and medical advice on the Internet

regards

Telemedicine has not gone as far as most of its early advocates thought it would go. A useful example comes from the Dermatologist who insists that he or she cannot accurately diagnose a "melanoma" from a transmitted patient selfie of his or her arm with a lesion that the Dermatologist cannot palpate or visualize directly.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

I think that internet can be useful both for doctors and patients. Clearly, they need to select articles that they can trust and understand (especially patients).

If the diagnosis is known, then in most cases a doctor can offer a better treatment than a patient can read on internet (given that doctor is well educated and also reads new information on internet).

But if the diagnosis is unknown, internet can help to understand possible threats. In some cases doctors might be not enough attentive, rely only on analyses (that not often show full reality especially when some problem just begins) and not on symptoms. Then internet finding can allow a patient to ask a smart question and make doctor to think in a right direction.

These are my thoughts based on private experience. But I have to admit that I never got any medical education, although I read some medical articles on internet on topics relevant for me or my friends. But there is also a danger that such "educated patients" will "bomb" doctors with minor psycho-somatic problems.

• The doctor-patient consultation tailors (or at least, is supposed to tailor) available medical science around the discomfort of the patient. This is what the unsupervised information on the Internet cannot do.
• The Internet can and does give a false sense of empowerment to both the patient and the doctor.
• There is a dedicated teaching system that is imparted in Medical Schools that is designed to teach graduating doctors the first steps of this tailoring process.
• All dedicated doctors continue to learn this tailoring process life-long.
• No text-book of Medicine/Surgery provides ready reckoners for this tailoring process.
• To learn this art outside the text-book, graduating and post-graduating doctors undergo supervised training for lengths upto 10-15 years. There is no role of the Internet in this vital process.
• Those who ask smart questions from knowledge gleaned from the Internet have no idea of the local realities or the complications that can follow the simplest of treatments.
• Patients also try to put down doctors in many ways other than the Internet. Accented language is one way in which the Anglophile does her/his best to outdo the doctor. The veiled threat of moving onto a larger better equipped centre abroad is another strategy. There are many more ways through which a patient can adopt an adversarial posture vis-a-vis the doctor. It is always better to move on to another doctor than to adopt such an attitude and save one's own health as soon as possible.
• Law and legality has coloured the attitiude of the patient towards the doctor with negative consequences.
• Law cannot restore health; law and legality can compensate but cannot restore health, a critical limitation that patients worlwide do not comprehend.
• Who goes to a doctor to secure monetary compensation at the expense of health?

The conclusion says it all:

As a conclusion, we observe that the theoretical frame of this question as an object of study still requires a significant amount of further research and published findings that tie together and comprehensively articulate the theory and empirical analyses and evaluations of proposed interventions. Regarding the doctor–patient relationship, there may need to be some rethinking of it, which places the patient in a position which is as active as the physician´s, to the extent that the patient’s complaint guides the clinical moment. This rethinking of the place of the patient is essentially one of the targets of any project on the humanization of medicine.

There will be total chaos if the patient's perception or symptoms is to guide the clinical moment, and worse so in Emergencies when not a single second it to be lost, a time when armchair discussions by academicians conducting research on the doctor-patient fulcrum are best eliminated completely. Most patients can never be fully satisfied. After 50 years in practice, at least I can conclude on this note with confidence. What will the patient with hematemesis or a ruptured appendix or subarachnoid hemorrhage or coma or pneumothorax or diabetic coma with falling blood pressure or pre-shock condition or ....contribute. These luxuries and ideal discussions / confrontations with the doctor are affordable only in non-emergency situations in out-of-hospital locales.

Amalgamation of East and West medical approaches is neither practical nor feasible. Those who advocate such an approach neither know well the East or the West.

Hedging terms make a large part of this response @Nirmala. If and when they are eliminated, some clarity may emerge.

Best.