Two-part — Using the Internet for medical advice instead of seeing a doctor

For many people, the first response to a worrying symptom is to type it into a search engine, and for some it is also the last. Convenience, cost and embarrassment explain this habit, and I consider relying on it as a substitute for a doctor to be a largely negative trend.

The appeal is easy to understand. A search takes seconds, costs nothing and is available at three in the morning. A visit to a clinic, by contrast, may mean taking a day off work, paying a consultation fee and sitting for hours in a waiting room. In countries where appointments must be booked weeks ahead, the Internet fills a real gap. Privacy matters too: people who would be embarrassed to discuss depression, a skin condition or sexual health face to face can read about it anonymously.

Nevertheless, replacing a consultation with a search is risky. A website cannot examine a patient, order a blood test or ask the follow-up question that changes a diagnosis, and the same symptom, such as a persistent headache, may indicate anything from tiredness to a tumour. Those who rely on self-diagnosis therefore go wrong in both directions: some convince themselves they are ill, which fuels health anxiety, while others are falsely reassured and delay proper treatment until a curable condition has advanced. Much online content is written to sell supplements rather than to inform, and readers who take unprescribed antibiotics on its advice add to the spread of drug resistance. Admittedly, reputable sites help patients understand a diagnosis already made, or manage a common cold. That is using the Internet alongside a doctor, however, not in place of one.

People turn to the Internet because it is quick, free and private, but none of those advantages makes it a safe replacement for a qualified professional. Online resources are best treated as preparation for a proper examination; used alone, they do more harm than good.