A sad stool

MJA 1997; 167: 654  

To the Editor: With greater attention being given to improving communication between healthcare professionals and the public, the following incident is a simple yet worthy reminder that effective communication depends not only on the information that is transmitted but, more importantly, on the information that is received. A young woman came into my pharmacy with a prescription for Ferro-Gradumet (ferrous sulfate, Abbott), and it was obvious that she was reluctant to have it dispensed. During our conversation, she remarked that she was very concerned about becoming depressed because the doctor had told her that while taking this medicine her emotions would be black. This certainly wasn't the message that the doctor intended to transmit (viz. her motions would be black), and it could have led her to abandon the treatment. How can we ensure that the correct message is received? Failures in communication like this can be avoided if plain, straightforward words are used instead of outdated euphemisms. In this instance, the more direct word "faeces" is less likely to be misinterpreted and, if not understood, is more likely to prompt the question, "What do you mean by that?". Richard M Worrell Pharmacist, PO Box 274, Rose Bay, NSW 2029