This ‘Duty of Care’ requires that when explaining medical matters, they must give a full explanation of all the evidenced Medical views and treatment options together with information on all the risk’s associated with each treatment recommendation. Failure to do so is misleading and could be construed as an attempt to influence patient/public choice of medical view/treatment.
This is probably where the whole "it's not medical, it's not quite psychiatric either, it's at the interface of the mind-body-spirit-brain-holy-ghost split" is critical. Let's be honest, there is no such thing as duty of care. Duties, by definition, cannot be shirked, they are mandatory. Rules only matter when they are enforced properly, and in the case of chronic illness there are clear orders to deny them. Worse, they spill over, as we saw here. A clear medical emergency was basically overruled by this obsession with "it could be fake and we're being taken for suckers" that seem to provide more motivation than any other factor.
The last sentence, "an attempt to influence patient/public choice of medical view/treatment", is basically what you find when you boil down the biopsychosocial "education as intervention" model to its natural "bunch of hot air" state. It explicitly tries to influence not just patient choice, but to distort its reporting, allowing it to be false, in fact preferring that it be false. It's even all written down plainly, it's the explicit goal. It's manipulative and exploitative. It's fundamentally unethical.
To allow psychosomatic medicine to gain this much influence, all the rules have to be suspended. You technically have the so-called duties of care and candor, and the whole thing makes a complete mockery of it. There is supposed to be informed consent, but basic information is routinely withheld precisely out of that obsession with patients 'medicalizing' their illness. Which can be a concern, but in its current form amounts to an industrial scale throwing babies out with the bathwater.
So the problem really is over standards. There are multiple standards. Sometimes they are high. Sometimes they are so low that "I saw it in a dream" is above-average. Mental health in general is treated to much lower standards than biomedical issues, if any. We are "the rest", where standards are in fact rejected, where explicitly manipulating subjective outcomes is actually necessary, whereas it's normally strictly forbidden.
And of course almost none of the mental health / biopsychosocial models of care meet minimal standards. Which obviously explains why they have such awful outcomes, about the worst RoI juice you could squeeze out of a rock. But we can't seem to get experts to care about that. Even though they care deeply about such things, as long as there is no exemption status.
It's the damn exemptions. The ones they can't admit publicly, because they know they are exemptions to standards, lack any reliable evidence whatsoever. It's a system of exceptions, not rules.
