The God Complex in Medicine: Your Health vs. Their Ego

Doctors in Canada play a vital role in safeguarding public health, but real-life experiences show they are not immune to the pitfalls of arrogance or error. When medical professionals adopt a “God complex”, asserting unchecked authority and dismissing reasonable patient questions, harms can escalate, sometimes with life-altering consequences for those they serve. Below’s detailed cases, alongside Canadian data, demonstrates why listening, humility, and partnership are essential in healthcare.

Jane’s Story: Dismissed Questions, Delayed Care

Jane arrived at the emergency room on a Friday morning, experiencing sharp pain on the right side of her abdomen, a classic sign of appendicitis. Given her past medical history (including at least six CT scans in recent years) Jane was worried about radiation exposure. After waiting nearly two hours, a doctor saw her briefly, did a quick physical exam, and ordered another CT scan. The interaction was less than a minute long.

As Jane waited, alone, anxious, and on a stretcher in the hallway, she researched the issue on her phone and learned that an ultrasound or an MRI could sometimes substitute for a CT in diagnosing appendicitis. She expressed her concern to a nurse, asking whether an ultrasound was an option. The nurse relayed the request to the doctor, who canceled the CT scan and ordered an ultrasound instead. But there was no explanation or conversation with Jane; the doctor never returned to discuss the options with her. The doctor simply felt “vetoed” and acted without consulting Jane. This unexplained switch delayed an accurate diagnosis. When the ultrasound proved inconclusive, Jane was told she had missed her “window” for prompt CT imaging. The doctor then presented an impossible choice: wait indefinitely in the ER for a rescheduled scan, or go home and wait for a CT appointment.

Feeling dismissed and unwelcome, Jane went home, aware that her appendix could potentially rupture at any moment. The pain intensified overnight. She returned the next day, finally received a CT scan in two hours, and was promptly diagnosed. Instead of concern for the delay, the doctor greeted Jane with blame, saying, “If you had let me do my job yesterday, we wouldn’t be here today.” Jane, in severe pain and emotionally overwhelmed, broke down in tears at the lack of compassion. The doctor insisted Jane had “vetoed” her, and never acknowledged the absence of communication or failure to include Jane in critical decisions. In this instance, authority and ego overrode teamwork, nearly resulting in a life-threatening outcome. Jane got surgery the same day and wants to thank the rest of the team who cared for her.

Jimmy’s Story: Advocacy Met With Dismissal

Jimmy, a 60-year-old Ontarian, had spent nearly a decade without regular medical care after his previous family doctor left town. When a new physician opened a practice, Jimmy and his wife were relieved to finally get accepted. The doctor ordered initial bloodwork, but when the results arrived, Jimmy’s wife noticed missing tests: no cholesterol screen and no liver enzyme panel, despite Jimmy’s known risk factors (including regular alcohol use and past liver issues).

At the introductory appointment, Jimmy politely requested these tests. The doctor, instead of engaging, snapped, “You don’t need them.” Jimmy asked how the doctor could know his cholesterol or liver health were fine without testing. When Jimmy mentioned that his wife had suggested he push for the tests, the doctor retorted, “Is your wife a doctor?” Jimmy’s wife has been with him for 20 years and has a good understanding of Jimmy’s health. This doctor had known Jimmy for 5 minutes. Isn’t it reasonable to think his wife my have some insight to give?

The doctor, comparing Jimmy’s questioning to a passenger doubting an airplane pilot, doubled down. The encounter escalated further: although the doctor did initiate a colonoscopy referral after an abnormal colon cancer screening, he also told Jimmy to find another doctor and effectively removed him from the practice. Because of primary care shortages, Jimmy was left without any family doctor to receive or manage results, despite the potentially life-changing implications of cancer screening and a serious history of liver risk.

Jimmy’s situation is not an isolated case; it highlights the sometimes punitive response to reasonable patient advocacy in Canada. His requests, a cholesterol and liver panel, regular bloodwork for someone with his history, were not unreasonable. Yet the doctor’s reaction prioritized personal authority over patient well-being, forcing Jimmy out of care at a dangerous moment. Jimmy did issue a formal complaint with the CPSO.

Both stories, drawn from true Canadian experiences, reveal how the failure to treat patients as partners, and a doctor’s sensitivity to questions, can create unnecessary risk, emotional distress, and, ultimately, worse health outcomes

Systemic Risks: Canadian Data on Patient Harm

These stories are not anomalies but reflect well-documented trends in Canadian healthcare:

• In 2021–2022, one in seventeen hospital stays in Canada—about 150,000 out of 2.5 million admissions—involved at least one harmful event requiring additional treatment or extended hospitalization.
• Preventable errors range from medication mistakes and infections to surgical oversights and disregard for patient concerns.
• Out of those harmed, one in eight died in hospital, and about 30,000 suffered more than one adverse event.
• Canadian Institute for Health Information reports nearly half (45%) of harmful events stem from health care or medication issues, 30% from infections, 21% from procedures, and 4% from patient accidents.
• Most critically, failures in communication, dismissive attitudes, and denial of patient advocacy are leading contributors to these incidents.

Why Arrogance and Authority Are Dangerous

Research shows arrogance provokes the majority of formal patient complaints and creates barriers to safety. Physicians’ overconfidence can prevent them from accepting fallibility, hearing team input, or respecting patients’ lived experience, all of which are vital for safe care. When doctors react defensively or punitively to questions, as in Jane and Jimmy’s cases, patient safety diminishes, and trust erodes.

The Case for Patient Partnership

The Canadian Patient Safety Institute and Healthcare Excellence organizations call for transforming patient-practitioner interactions into true partnerships built on humility, respect, and transparency. Dr. Mike Varshavski, a family medicine physician and YouTuber, explains: “I actually like when my patients question me because it means they’re engaged in their care. Medicine is a collaborative process, and when patients are involved and ask questions, it helps me provide better care and catch things that might be missed otherwise.”

Open dialogue reduces errors and leads to better outcomes. Physicians like Dr. Mike understand that things get missed and value opportunities to collaborate, standing in stark contrast to those who respond with defensiveness or dismissal.

We live in an interconnected world where access to information is instant, and healthcare is no exception. Imagine a central database where every doctor can see a patient’s full medical history with the tap of a button. That kind of access is powerful, but with great power comes great responsibility. Data should never feed a “god complex.” Patients are not spreadsheets to be managed; they are human beings whose lives, fears, and hopes are wrapped up in that information. Doctors must approach this privilege with humility, remembering that knowledge is not the same as wisdom, and responsibility must always outweigh ego.

Conclusion

Jane and Jimmy’s stories, supported by sobering national statistics and healthcare research, reveal the tangible risks of the “God complex” in Canadian medicine. Physicians must embrace humility and patient engagement rather than dominance to minimize preventable harm. Every Canadian deserves a healthcare system where questioning a doctor is welcomed as essential for safety and dignity—not punished as insubordination.