What do you think?
Rate this book
Can Medicine be Cured?
A fierce, honest, elegant and often hilarious debunking of the great fallacies that drive modern medicine.
'A deeply fascinating and rousing book' Mail on Sunday.
'What makes this book a delightful, if unsettling read, is not just O'Mahony's scholarly and witty prose, but also his brutal honesty' The Times.
Seamus O'Mahony writes about the illusion of progress, the notion that more and more diseases can be 'conquered' ad infinitum. He punctures the idiocy of consumerism, the idea that healthcare can be endlessly adapted to the wishes of individuals.
He excoriates the claims of Big Science, the spending of vast sums on research follies like the Human Genome Project. And he highlights one of the most dangerous errors of industrialized medicine: an over-reliance on metrics, and a neglect of things that can't easily be measured, like compassion.
Audio CD
First published February 7, 2019
123 people are currently reading
792 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
June 3, 2019
I read this in less than three hours, after a long weekend in which I suffered the gamut of stress-induced psychosomatic symptoms from a failed attempt to contribute to the very toxic academic-medicine pony-mill O'Mahony eviscerates in this book. The chapters on the inherent emptiness and lack of true scientific rigour in medical research were balm to my weary soul. I like to think that even if I had been less personally upset by it while reading I would still be able to appreciate the justice in it. I don't know any doctor who is motivated by pure scientific curiosity in their research. More than that, I don't know any doctor who would voluntarily participate in research if it wasn't required to get a job at the end, or who doesn't regard the enterprise with an emotion between resignation and despair.
the epidemiologist Thomas McKeown, who believed that sanitation, nutrition and housing were the more important determinants of health
And, O'Mahony avers, medicine has taken the benefit. The thrust of his - very plausible - argument is that the greatest achievements of medicine coincided with improvements in the Big Three above, and that nothing in the last fifty-plus years has done anything remotely comparable.
no single cause of irreproducibility. The factors they identified included: 1 p-hacking 2 HARKing, short for Hypothesising After the Results are Known [...] 3 not publishing studies unless they have a 'significant' result 4 lack of statistical power 5 technical errors 6 inadequate description of experimental methods [...] 7 weak experimental design.
AHAHAHAHA.
Stephen Burayni wrote: 'It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other's work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill.
This is one of those incredibly obvious aspects of my life that I just accepted and didn't question and now that I realise how deeply suspect it is I am VERY ANGRY. Elsevier is a CREEP.
The AIDs activist Gregg Gonsalves expressed concern about the Gates Foundation: "Depending on what side of the bed Gates gets out of in the morning, it can shift the terrain of global health ... It's not a democracy. It's not even a constitutional monarchy. It's about what Bill and Melinda want."
I didn't expect a critique of philanthropy from O'Mahony, but I'm impressed that it's folded in, because it is completely relevant.
John Ioannadis argues that society at large should lower its expectations: "Science is a noble endeavour, but it's also a low-yield endeavour. I'm not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact."
I already loved Ioannadis, but now I love him even more.
Sweeney argued that there is a 'personal significance' beyond statistical significance and clinical significance: what matters most to this person now?
100% YES.
This is why complementary and alternative medicine remains so popular. Its practitioners are always absolutely definite as to the cause of their patients' problems
LEGIT.
[Wessley] wryly observed that the politicians who publicly support suicide awareness campaigns and call for the provision of more counsellors, might better redirect their efforts to addressing poverty and unemployment, the main drivers of suicide.
This is so true, and backs up O'Mahony's own assertion: Lobby, if you must, for humane treatment of frail, old people in emergency departments, but let's not raise awareness.
those most in need of healthcare - the elderly - do not regard themselves as part of the 'Google generation' and are not particularly interested in 'engaging, multimedia formats'.
This is hilarious and bitterly correct.
I am unconcerned with status for its own sake, but status should at least be commensurate with responsibility. We handed over our power but not our responsibility to patients.
This is so accurate to the current practice of medicine, I can't EVEN.
Perhaps we should start awareness campaigns with slogans such as 'Medicine Has Limited Powers', 'Death is Inevitable', 'Old Age is not a Disease'.
Let's go!
The McNamara Fallacy: The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't easily be measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured doesn't really exist. This is suicide.
O'Mahony has a few key things to say and has had a long time to think about them, which is presumably why he's had time to build up a commendable stack of sources that verify his opinions. A very readable and for me distressingly pertinent challenge to the medical community.
the epidemiologist Thomas McKeown, who believed that sanitation, nutrition and housing were the more important determinants of health
And, O'Mahony avers, medicine has taken the benefit. The thrust of his - very plausible - argument is that the greatest achievements of medicine coincided with improvements in the Big Three above, and that nothing in the last fifty-plus years has done anything remotely comparable.
no single cause of irreproducibility. The factors they identified included: 1 p-hacking 2 HARKing, short for Hypothesising After the Results are Known [...] 3 not publishing studies unless they have a 'significant' result 4 lack of statistical power 5 technical errors 6 inadequate description of experimental methods [...] 7 weak experimental design.
AHAHAHAHA.
Stephen Burayni wrote: 'It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other's work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill.
This is one of those incredibly obvious aspects of my life that I just accepted and didn't question and now that I realise how deeply suspect it is I am VERY ANGRY. Elsevier is a CREEP.
The AIDs activist Gregg Gonsalves expressed concern about the Gates Foundation: "Depending on what side of the bed Gates gets out of in the morning, it can shift the terrain of global health ... It's not a democracy. It's not even a constitutional monarchy. It's about what Bill and Melinda want."
I didn't expect a critique of philanthropy from O'Mahony, but I'm impressed that it's folded in, because it is completely relevant.
John Ioannadis argues that society at large should lower its expectations: "Science is a noble endeavour, but it's also a low-yield endeavour. I'm not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact."
I already loved Ioannadis, but now I love him even more.
Sweeney argued that there is a 'personal significance' beyond statistical significance and clinical significance: what matters most to this person now?
100% YES.
This is why complementary and alternative medicine remains so popular. Its practitioners are always absolutely definite as to the cause of their patients' problems
LEGIT.
[Wessley] wryly observed that the politicians who publicly support suicide awareness campaigns and call for the provision of more counsellors, might better redirect their efforts to addressing poverty and unemployment, the main drivers of suicide.
This is so true, and backs up O'Mahony's own assertion: Lobby, if you must, for humane treatment of frail, old people in emergency departments, but let's not raise awareness.
those most in need of healthcare - the elderly - do not regard themselves as part of the 'Google generation' and are not particularly interested in 'engaging, multimedia formats'.
This is hilarious and bitterly correct.
I am unconcerned with status for its own sake, but status should at least be commensurate with responsibility. We handed over our power but not our responsibility to patients.
This is so accurate to the current practice of medicine, I can't EVEN.
Perhaps we should start awareness campaigns with slogans such as 'Medicine Has Limited Powers', 'Death is Inevitable', 'Old Age is not a Disease'.
Let's go!
The McNamara Fallacy: The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't easily be measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured doesn't really exist. This is suicide.
O'Mahony has a few key things to say and has had a long time to think about them, which is presumably why he's had time to build up a commendable stack of sources that verify his opinions. A very readable and for me distressingly pertinent challenge to the medical community.
February 14, 2019
I've written a long blog on this for the BMJ. It's the most important critique of modern medicine since Ivan Illich--and, perhaps paradoxically, a joy to read. Often funny.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/02/13/...
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/02/13/...
August 27, 2021
Highly recommended. This brilliant book is a 21st century update of Medical Nemesis. As brilliant as Illich was, his argument strained credulity at times. O'Mahony is not as erudite, but has the extra advantage of being plausible.
April 16, 2022
The second of three books about systemic corruption in British society that I'm currently reading. Can Medicine Be Cured? hasn't been a very eye-opening work mainly because I've already read maybe a dozen other books that look at these same issues, but for anybody looking for an elementary excursion into the corruption of medicine, medical science, and pharmaceuticals, this is probably a good starting point. Most of what he describes is not unique to Great Britain, such as the medicalization of everything from grief to old age, the abuse of the scientific process by pharmaceutical companies looking for a profitable product rather than a useful product, the abuses of the scientific publishing industry which is almost pure profit, not having to pay peer reviewers, nor paying for the work they publish, work which the institutions and governments funded but then pay the journals extreme sums to get access to (!!), and the replacement of medical judgment with guidelines and protocols that force doctors to take unwise and often dangerous actions.
It's when he discusses issues related to the NHS that he enters terra incognita for me. The hospital rankings that have been fodder for the hysterical tabloids, misquoting reports to claim that certain hospitals, for instance, are so shoddy that thousands of people die in their care who shouldn't each year. He also explores his personal experiences in medical research in the '80s, contributing stray bricks to the vast edifice of science - bricks which almost never actually make it out of the the yard and into the actual monument, being simply busy work to make CVs look better. ("The biophysicist John Platt wrote in Science in 1964: ‘We speak piously of taking measurements and making small studies that will “add another brick to the temple of science”. Most such bricks just lie around in the brickyard.’")
"Depressing" might be the word that a lot of readers less familiar with the dismal state of affairs in academia and medicine specifically would use to describe this book. He paints a rather abysmal picture of wasted potential, bureaucratic soullessness, and false promises. He probably could have found some positive points to make, but that wouldn't have been keeping with the pessimism that characterizes Seamus O'Mahony's view of the medical industry.
I'll finish off with a few of the more thought-provoking quotations.
"A 2003 study from John Ioannidis showed the limitations of such ‘mechanistic’ research. Ioannidis is a Greek–American professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School, and is the founder and leader of a new discipline known as ‘meta-research’, or research about research. He and his wife Despina – a paediatrician – examined 101 basic science discoveries, published in the top basic science journals (Science, Nature, Cell, etc.) between 1979 and 1983, all of which claimed to have a clinical application. Twenty years later, twenty-seven of these technologies had been tested clinically, five eventually were approved for marketing, of which only one was deemed to have clinical benefit."
"Modern science is just too dull an activity to attract, retain or promote many of the most intelligent and creative people. In particular, the requirement for around 10, 15, or even 20 years of post-graduate ‘training’ before even having a chance at doing some independent research of one’s own choosing, is enough to deter almost anyone with a spark of vitality or self-respect; and utterly exclude anyone with an urgent sense of vocation for creative endeavour. Even after a decade or two of ‘training’ the most likely scientific prospect is that of researching a topic determined by the availability of funding rather than scientific importance, or else functioning as a cog in someone else’s research machine. Either way, the scientist will be working on somebody else’s problem – not his own. Why would any serious intellectual wish to aim for such a career?"
"Of course, those who are the most successful in grantsmanship include many superb scientists. However, they also include a large share (in many places, the majority) of the most aggressive, take-all, calculating managers. These are all very smart people and they are also acting in self-defence: trying to protect their research fiefdoms in uncertain times. But often I wonder: what monsters have we generated through selection of the fittest! We are cheering people to learn how to absorb money, how to get the best PR to inflate their work, how to become more bombastic and least self-critical. These are our science heroes of the 21st century."
"Real science is so hard that it can only be done by a small minority of people who combine high intelligence, passionate curiosity and a commitment to truth. Real science cannot be planned and carried out by committees of bureaucrats and careerists. Contemporary biomedical research has become a danger to both society and medicine. It is a danger because it is scientifically corrupt, and because it serves its own needs, not those of society. Research that has no function other than the production of data and the advancement of careers is self-evidently dangerous. Big Science, for all its boosterism, has been a crushing disappointment."
It's when he discusses issues related to the NHS that he enters terra incognita for me. The hospital rankings that have been fodder for the hysterical tabloids, misquoting reports to claim that certain hospitals, for instance, are so shoddy that thousands of people die in their care who shouldn't each year. He also explores his personal experiences in medical research in the '80s, contributing stray bricks to the vast edifice of science - bricks which almost never actually make it out of the the yard and into the actual monument, being simply busy work to make CVs look better. ("The biophysicist John Platt wrote in Science in 1964: ‘We speak piously of taking measurements and making small studies that will “add another brick to the temple of science”. Most such bricks just lie around in the brickyard.’")
"Depressing" might be the word that a lot of readers less familiar with the dismal state of affairs in academia and medicine specifically would use to describe this book. He paints a rather abysmal picture of wasted potential, bureaucratic soullessness, and false promises. He probably could have found some positive points to make, but that wouldn't have been keeping with the pessimism that characterizes Seamus O'Mahony's view of the medical industry.
I'll finish off with a few of the more thought-provoking quotations.
"A 2003 study from John Ioannidis showed the limitations of such ‘mechanistic’ research. Ioannidis is a Greek–American professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School, and is the founder and leader of a new discipline known as ‘meta-research’, or research about research. He and his wife Despina – a paediatrician – examined 101 basic science discoveries, published in the top basic science journals (Science, Nature, Cell, etc.) between 1979 and 1983, all of which claimed to have a clinical application. Twenty years later, twenty-seven of these technologies had been tested clinically, five eventually were approved for marketing, of which only one was deemed to have clinical benefit."
"Modern science is just too dull an activity to attract, retain or promote many of the most intelligent and creative people. In particular, the requirement for around 10, 15, or even 20 years of post-graduate ‘training’ before even having a chance at doing some independent research of one’s own choosing, is enough to deter almost anyone with a spark of vitality or self-respect; and utterly exclude anyone with an urgent sense of vocation for creative endeavour. Even after a decade or two of ‘training’ the most likely scientific prospect is that of researching a topic determined by the availability of funding rather than scientific importance, or else functioning as a cog in someone else’s research machine. Either way, the scientist will be working on somebody else’s problem – not his own. Why would any serious intellectual wish to aim for such a career?"
"Of course, those who are the most successful in grantsmanship include many superb scientists. However, they also include a large share (in many places, the majority) of the most aggressive, take-all, calculating managers. These are all very smart people and they are also acting in self-defence: trying to protect their research fiefdoms in uncertain times. But often I wonder: what monsters have we generated through selection of the fittest! We are cheering people to learn how to absorb money, how to get the best PR to inflate their work, how to become more bombastic and least self-critical. These are our science heroes of the 21st century."
"Real science is so hard that it can only be done by a small minority of people who combine high intelligence, passionate curiosity and a commitment to truth. Real science cannot be planned and carried out by committees of bureaucrats and careerists. Contemporary biomedical research has become a danger to both society and medicine. It is a danger because it is scientifically corrupt, and because it serves its own needs, not those of society. Research that has no function other than the production of data and the advancement of careers is self-evidently dangerous. Big Science, for all its boosterism, has been a crushing disappointment."
March 30, 2021
This should be read by everyone, especially if you’re a scientist or healthcare worker.
The author doesn’t hold back in his criticism and is very honest about how he was heavily involved in the very practices he now abhors.
He doesn’t really give many solutions to the problems he raises. It’s less a manifesto of how to change medicine and more an exhaustive list of everything wrong with the healthcare profession. Although with all of the issues he points out you’d be hard pressed to imagine that anyone could come up with solutions.
It’s not a feel good read but it is a necessary one.
The author doesn’t hold back in his criticism and is very honest about how he was heavily involved in the very practices he now abhors.
He doesn’t really give many solutions to the problems he raises. It’s less a manifesto of how to change medicine and more an exhaustive list of everything wrong with the healthcare profession. Although with all of the issues he points out you’d be hard pressed to imagine that anyone could come up with solutions.
It’s not a feel good read but it is a necessary one.
February 18, 2023
Seamus O'Mahony lays out a critique of how medicine is practiced with his characteristic humor and insight. Having lived through the same eras of medicine as he did, I find his commentary precisely on target. He expresses the unease and dissatisfaction that so many young, idealistic, energetic doctors feel as they move from their training into practice, including the feeling that to really do our best for our patients requires us to fight against everything going on around us. He mercilessly skewers management, leadership, and medical academia. He calls out disease-mongering and misplaced priorities. Although he writes mostly about practice in the UK / NHS, the problems he identifies are unfortunately universal. This book is full of humor, although for real laughs I would recommend his more recent The Ministry of Bodies, a memoir of his last year in practice. There is wisdom on every page, although he seems resigned to the fact that his insights are unlikely to change anything. "Temperamentally, I was made for the cloister, for the library, but fate placed me in the dust of the arena." Moi aussi.
January 21, 2020
It would be very easy to dismiss this book as a rant from a jaded clinician close to the end of his medical career. Because that's what this is. Despite this, in lashing out in all directions - at medical research, at medical humanities, at pharmaceutical companies, patient groups, and hospital managers, the author occasionally strikes some valid targets. His attack on medical research is valid and should be read and thought about by funders and researchers alike.
Unfortunately, the book is largely inconsistent. For example, on one page the author attacks people working in the medical humanities for being unintelligible as a way to avoid scrutiny, and at the same time seems to indulge in the idea that the clinical encounter is and always will be a mystery that only a clinician (and only some clinicians at that) can understand.
The sections on the misuse of metrics are a useful challenge to the prevailing audit culture, and should prompt a worthwhile discussion of where data cannot go and where clinical responsibility rests. Unfortunately, this intermingles with a largely unsubstantiated attack on hospital managers, and at no point does the author consider whether health care has got safer and better because of that scrutiny.
Unfortunately, the book is largely inconsistent. For example, on one page the author attacks people working in the medical humanities for being unintelligible as a way to avoid scrutiny, and at the same time seems to indulge in the idea that the clinical encounter is and always will be a mystery that only a clinician (and only some clinicians at that) can understand.
The sections on the misuse of metrics are a useful challenge to the prevailing audit culture, and should prompt a worthwhile discussion of where data cannot go and where clinical responsibility rests. Unfortunately, this intermingles with a largely unsubstantiated attack on hospital managers, and at no point does the author consider whether health care has got safer and better because of that scrutiny.
January 3, 2021
Would've been better as a collection of focused essays. It's aimless and, while it has good points, I have no idea what his overall narrative was.
August 11, 2024
Scary, cynical, real
November 25, 2020
Great examination on the flaws of modern medicine with an Irish view which is great
November 6, 2023
An incisive book about the cultural and social baggage that medicine has accumulated in the last few decades.
November 18, 2024
Enastående, ilsken och cynisk uppgörelse med hur skeva incitament skapat en sjukvård som är till för patienten i sista hand, alla andra inblandade i första hand. Fångar upp och sätter ord på den diffusa frustration många vårdanställda känner i (andra halvan av) sina karriärer.
January 16, 2025
Well worth reading! An eloquent discussion of healthcare bullshit and very educational for us students… 😵💫Never before heard a senior doctor discuss how research is a tick the box activity for career progression🥵At times his statements were so frank that I was like ooh yikes! And some interesting opinions about sepsis 6…🧐🤔at times I was like hmm…is this a conspiracy theory rn? But overall I really enjoyed and it’s full of common sense. Made me feel better about some things and worse about others. Got a bit lost half way through but managed to gain a very important new perspective on why we’re doing all of this.
May 7, 2021
Nobody seems to like change and this book is written by an old school doctor who does not like what has happened to his profession particularly in the UK under the umbrella of the NHS which has morphed from an ideal formerly the envy of the world into a cumbersome virtual monopoly . The recipient of billions and billions of government funding is now being leeched upon by amongst others , pharma companies , pen pushing managers , charities , management consultants , computer companies and their failed IT programmes , patient groups , university research deptartments s .and somewhere amongst all this doctors and nurses are trying to do a worthwhile job .
A glorious profession is now no more than a cog in the huge wheel of the industrial -medical complex .
The medical profession is always in crisis and on the brink of breakdown and constantly wanting more funding .
The writer in an often funny vent of spleen , skewers many false gods . The medicalisation of society has created a demand for medical services way beyond its ability to provide . He suggests every medical body should have a warning that death is inevitable and we can only do so much .
I particularly liked the chapter on " Raising Awareness " or as O'Mahony likes to describe it lobbying that my disease is more important than your disease . A Z list celebrity is always raising awareness for their own pet disease . Have you noticed the new fad of tweeting from a hospital bed recovering from some minor ailment in order to raise awareness . Raising awareness or self publicity as it used to be known .
In amongst all this everybody has now become a patient in waiting , a potential customer or consumer to be advertised to , frightened to death about impending illness and a sucker to be lured in .
The writer mourns the decline of actual doctor to patient interaction .
What is the answer ? This doctor wrote all this before the dreaded C word appeared , no not cancer but Covid . This has accelerated all the changes he dreaded and there is no turning back .
A glorious profession is now no more than a cog in the huge wheel of the industrial -medical complex .
The medical profession is always in crisis and on the brink of breakdown and constantly wanting more funding .
The writer in an often funny vent of spleen , skewers many false gods . The medicalisation of society has created a demand for medical services way beyond its ability to provide . He suggests every medical body should have a warning that death is inevitable and we can only do so much .
I particularly liked the chapter on " Raising Awareness " or as O'Mahony likes to describe it lobbying that my disease is more important than your disease . A Z list celebrity is always raising awareness for their own pet disease . Have you noticed the new fad of tweeting from a hospital bed recovering from some minor ailment in order to raise awareness . Raising awareness or self publicity as it used to be known .
In amongst all this everybody has now become a patient in waiting , a potential customer or consumer to be advertised to , frightened to death about impending illness and a sucker to be lured in .
The writer mourns the decline of actual doctor to patient interaction .
What is the answer ? This doctor wrote all this before the dreaded C word appeared , no not cancer but Covid . This has accelerated all the changes he dreaded and there is no turning back .
February 16, 2020
A bit of an eye opener. A shocker really to hear how the notion of evidence based medicine has been debased, solely for commercial reasons.
He made a big point of disparaging clinical use of flow charts and algorithms, on the basis it takes the individuality of the patient out of the case.
His concerns leave the lay reader with plenty of food for thought.
However I am not sure he's informed enough about neuroscience to be so dismissive of the use of fMRI.
He was also disparaging of doctors who encourage the development of empathy. Now that is an area where I've had a lot of training, and I'm certain he misunderstood empathy. Empathy is not about feeling someone's pain. That's a form of synaesthesia. Empathy is about seeking to understand someone's world view.
I've no doubt the author has been practising it for years since he's had lots of Difficult Conversations. It's empathy without judgment which enables a medic to understand why someone is unwilling to comply with recommended treatments.
By the end of the book I felt the author had lost a sense of direction. It seemed he was just on a rant and complaining for the sake of it.
However his core message of the abuse of EBM, the overtreatment of patients as a result of protocols, particularly the elderly make this an essential read for anyone who has a interest in health and health care. This book is highly recommended.
He made a big point of disparaging clinical use of flow charts and algorithms, on the basis it takes the individuality of the patient out of the case.
His concerns leave the lay reader with plenty of food for thought.
However I am not sure he's informed enough about neuroscience to be so dismissive of the use of fMRI.
He was also disparaging of doctors who encourage the development of empathy. Now that is an area where I've had a lot of training, and I'm certain he misunderstood empathy. Empathy is not about feeling someone's pain. That's a form of synaesthesia. Empathy is about seeking to understand someone's world view.
I've no doubt the author has been practising it for years since he's had lots of Difficult Conversations. It's empathy without judgment which enables a medic to understand why someone is unwilling to comply with recommended treatments.
By the end of the book I felt the author had lost a sense of direction. It seemed he was just on a rant and complaining for the sake of it.
However his core message of the abuse of EBM, the overtreatment of patients as a result of protocols, particularly the elderly make this an essential read for anyone who has a interest in health and health care. This book is highly recommended.
October 18, 2022
Should be on reading lists for our public health module. Haven’t read such a concise and well written critique of the health system in Ireland and the UK before.
Touching on medical research, consumerism, big corp and politics weaponising healthcare as a tool to make money/ get votes. Like capitalism truly is a hellscape which has infected such a fundamental part of human life, healthcare. Fantastic job at critiquing the health system.
Few flaws/ disagreements I had a bit too much of looking at the past with rose tinted glasses like more forward thinking solutions needed to be written. Also a bit too too much of whilst the system needs to fundamentally change the criticism needs to be pointed at doctors more too.
Like the line that the model of medical research and hospitals at top and community care and hospices at bottom needing to be flipped more on that idea.
Also this guy is a bit condescending. I would have preferred more solutions focused outlook to remedy these issues which are all articulated extremely well.
Touching on medical research, consumerism, big corp and politics weaponising healthcare as a tool to make money/ get votes. Like capitalism truly is a hellscape which has infected such a fundamental part of human life, healthcare. Fantastic job at critiquing the health system.
Few flaws/ disagreements I had a bit too much of looking at the past with rose tinted glasses like more forward thinking solutions needed to be written. Also a bit too too much of whilst the system needs to fundamentally change the criticism needs to be pointed at doctors more too.
Like the line that the model of medical research and hospitals at top and community care and hospices at bottom needing to be flipped more on that idea.
Also this guy is a bit condescending. I would have preferred more solutions focused outlook to remedy these issues which are all articulated extremely well.
November 13, 2019
For someone of a similar age and also a doctor and also a gastroenterologist, it’s perhaps not surprising that this book was pretty much a revelation. The author seemed to say everything I have been thinking for years. Brutally honest and withering critique of the state of modern medicine which is a must read for any one involved in healthcare but also for the wider world. Indeed, while this may simply articulate my own frustrations and beliefs regarding medicine, maybe if a few politicians, media folk and the public read this book, we could start to have sensible conversations about healthcare provision and people’s expectations of medicine. No one escapes his brutal deconstruction including medical research, big pharma, the media and the political elite. However a special place is reserved for managerialism and the use of metrics to drive health care. Remarkably well written and often funny as well. If enough people read this it could be a game changer
March 3, 2019
Heart in the right place rant about big pharma, useless of much cancer research and medicine being run to targets so that the patient is overlooked. Certainly right to pick out the scandalous lack of funding for hospices as opposed to cancer research. We're living to be much older - that's why we get more cancer and heart disease, and the "cures" for this are a long way off.
Also points out the statistical nonsense that is the Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratio and the sleight of hand that lets cancer drugs be funded if the tumour doesn't grow(e.g. no cure - just a meaningless measure for the patient).
Does go overboard on criticising management of hospitals - hospital are large institutions that do need good leadership and management - and good management does not rely only on metrics.
Also points out the statistical nonsense that is the Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratio and the sleight of hand that lets cancer drugs be funded if the tumour doesn't grow(e.g. no cure - just a meaningless measure for the patient).
Does go overboard on criticising management of hospitals - hospital are large institutions that do need good leadership and management - and good management does not rely only on metrics.
December 5, 2021
Reflections and lessons learned:
“We are treating population not people…”
Big science, big data, statins, ebm, deprescribing, publishing, pandemics, empathy - we’ve had a copy of this in the health library where I work for a while, and I really should have read it sooner - an interesting, balanced discussion on the delivery of a changing health service from many angles. In a time when the heartbreaking word ‘broken’ is often used for the service and unfortunately the staff, it’s hard to know exactly what it should and shouldn’t be providing under the NHS, but this vocalises the thoughts that many of us staff are currently contemplating
“We are treating population not people…”
Big science, big data, statins, ebm, deprescribing, publishing, pandemics, empathy - we’ve had a copy of this in the health library where I work for a while, and I really should have read it sooner - an interesting, balanced discussion on the delivery of a changing health service from many angles. In a time when the heartbreaking word ‘broken’ is often used for the service and unfortunately the staff, it’s hard to know exactly what it should and shouldn’t be providing under the NHS, but this vocalises the thoughts that many of us staff are currently contemplating
February 10, 2023
We all know medicine and the systems that deliver it are broken and there is no shortage of scapegoats. This book offers rarely articulated insights into the workings of our health services and many ideas for ways forward. O'Mahony has worked on both sides of the Irish Sea and is a convincing witness.
August 27, 2021
I have read this book just as I finish the end of the fourth week of my medical career. What the author details in the book is mirrored exactly by what I see in my job as a new doctor and things really do have to change. I just hope that I have to courage to be a small part of this change although sadly, I think it's rather out of my hands. At least having read this book, I'm going in with eyes open. I will read this book again once I'm a little bit more established and reflect. Thank you Seamus O'Mahony for this book and so eloquently putting into words what I see on the ground.
September 15, 2019
Not quite Illych or skrabanek, and more polemic than analytical, this thoughtful book by a physician nearing the end of his career nevertheless manages to be both informative and entertaining. Nothing new but he rails against the industrial medical complex effectively, and there’s plenty in here to provoke more detailed analysis for converts of which I hope that there are many.
June 23, 2019
Passionate. Unflinching. Clear-sighted. Loved it.
August 31, 2020
The ideas in this book are very thought provoking and it's all described in a very readable and at times funny way. It discusses many of the underlying assumptions in the NHS, things like the concept of 'excess deaths', market forces, 'communication skills' and a small but very interesting bit on why overuse of the sepsis six bundle will lead to higher rates of people catching sepsis in the long run.
I docked a star for chapter 9 though, an absolute mess of a chapter which barely fits the rest of the book and sees him answering his own rhetorical questions and dismantling some of his own points seemingly without realising, he ends up making an argument which sounds like 'people shouldn't want to see the doctor' which seemed baffling to me.
I'm writing this review to bookmark it for myself at a later date I imagine it will be useful to reference if I ever do my MSc, fully recommend to everyone though.
I docked a star for chapter 9 though, an absolute mess of a chapter which barely fits the rest of the book and sees him answering his own rhetorical questions and dismantling some of his own points seemingly without realising, he ends up making an argument which sounds like 'people shouldn't want to see the doctor' which seemed baffling to me.
I'm writing this review to bookmark it for myself at a later date I imagine it will be useful to reference if I ever do my MSc, fully recommend to everyone though.
December 12, 2025
My main critique of this is the audiobook recording. The pacing is very odd, with some sentences having weirdly long gaps and others running quickly into the next one with no distinction. I’m not sure if this is an editing issue or a pacing one, but it makes listening quite confusing. The narrator also butchers the pronunciation of many names, which at times is quite funny.
The book itself has no structure in the first half, with the second half being a bit better. The author also kept switching between citing his sources and not, which was jarring. The style of the book felt more like an academic paper than a book, which made it not so easy to listen to. Not all of the author's opinions landed for me, however his insight into his profession was interesting, and he raised some very interesting and shocking facts about modern-day healthcare and pharma which'll stick with me for a while.
The book itself has no structure in the first half, with the second half being a bit better. The author also kept switching between citing his sources and not, which was jarring. The style of the book felt more like an academic paper than a book, which made it not so easy to listen to. Not all of the author's opinions landed for me, however his insight into his profession was interesting, and he raised some very interesting and shocking facts about modern-day healthcare and pharma which'll stick with me for a while.
August 6, 2020
Can Medicine Be Cured by Seamus O'Mahony - really appreciated listening to this although I'd suggest you read the physical copy rather than the audiobook! This is a meticulous critique of medical care in the western world and its approach in modern society, how it's kind of lost the run of itself.
As someone who knows very little about healthcare practices, bits of this book may have gone over my head but, moral of the story, we need to use what we have to make the world as it is a better place for everyone. (Also, just saying, Seamus O'Mahony actually says a global pandemic will enforce re-evaluation and this book was published a year ago wuttt)
It was pretty rattling to listen to as it discusses the commodification of human life which is, like, not fun. This book struck a nice balance between humorous, informative and scathing and I'd recommend, particularly to those working in health care!
As someone who knows very little about healthcare practices, bits of this book may have gone over my head but, moral of the story, we need to use what we have to make the world as it is a better place for everyone. (Also, just saying, Seamus O'Mahony actually says a global pandemic will enforce re-evaluation and this book was published a year ago wuttt)
It was pretty rattling to listen to as it discusses the commodification of human life which is, like, not fun. This book struck a nice balance between humorous, informative and scathing and I'd recommend, particularly to those working in health care!
April 29, 2019
A compelling book; humerous and bleak in equal measure. I'm not an academic or a doctor but I grew up with and then worked in the NHS at the close of the 'golden years'. I witnessed the effects of 10 years of Conservative public policy on the service.
The NHS was never free, except to the unemployed. We contributed to the national insurance fund on top of our regular taxes. 9% as I remember, of an already meagre nurses' salary. I laughed heartily at the radio announcement that today is Lyme Disease Awareness Day. Thank you Professor O' Mahony for raising my awareness of the insidious onset of populist healthcare. I am healed.
The NHS was never free, except to the unemployed. We contributed to the national insurance fund on top of our regular taxes. 9% as I remember, of an already meagre nurses' salary. I laughed heartily at the radio announcement that today is Lyme Disease Awareness Day. Thank you Professor O' Mahony for raising my awareness of the insidious onset of populist healthcare. I am healed.
Read
August 31, 2025I spent a few weeks of my medical elective shadowing the writer. He was a brilliant physician with the same cynical, dry sense of humour as comes across in this book. I enjoyed this book because it has encouraged me to question many of the assumptions or lies of modern medicine and the healthcare industry and I hope to remain more vigilant for these going forward. These include the problems that arise with evaluating healthcare through narrow metrics and problems with healthcare and biomedical science being proposed as an answer to too broad a range of life’s challenges. This was a funny, interesting and informative read.
April 21, 2019
Seamus O'Mahony offers a scathing analysis of our current approach to medical care and the enormous cost of achieving minimal returns.
The opening paragraph of the epilogue is a fitting summary of his entire argument:
"During the golden age, medical science gained huge prestige, and human life and death became medicalized. Despite its global dominance, the medical-industrial complex has given us meagre, feeble comforts at vast expense. Its chief concern is its own survival and continued dominance, and its ethos now is a betrayalof the scientific ideals of the golden age."
The opening paragraph of the epilogue is a fitting summary of his entire argument:
"During the golden age, medical science gained huge prestige, and human life and death became medicalized. Despite its global dominance, the medical-industrial complex has given us meagre, feeble comforts at vast expense. Its chief concern is its own survival and continued dominance, and its ethos now is a betrayalof the scientific ideals of the golden age."
April 8, 2019
This book is the highly necessary follow-up to Ivan Illich's Medical Nemesis:the expropriation of health, which is a classic on how Western medicine derailed completely. Illich saw it clearer than most and well before most of the world woke up about it.
OḾahony now fills in the picture based on his own medical career, and the outcome is stunning. We cannot begin to fix the healthcare system before we understand what is wrong with it.
OḾahony now fills in the picture based on his own medical career, and the outcome is stunning. We cannot begin to fix the healthcare system before we understand what is wrong with it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews