
Four ways to get a stubborn man to go to the doctor
Five years ago during lockdown, chartered surveyor Matthew Black started having stomach problems and lost an unusual amount of weight. He went from a 'slightly rotund 82kg down to 68kg'. 'Suddenly my jeans were fitting better but I put it down to eating salads at home. The last thing I wanted was to take up valuable doctors' time with a rather pathetic stomach ache. Plus what happens if it's bad news? I didn't want to know.'
He was listless, with no energy. On his son's 18th birthday 'miserable Dad' ended up in bed early. His accountant wife Stef had had enough. Their daughter Holly bundled him into the car and took him to the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead to get checked out. After an MRI scan and blood tests, they found a blockage in his colon. After a nine-hour operation, and the removal of a 9cm by 6cm tumour, he spent 11 days in hospital.
Black, who is an ambassador for bowel cancer charities, is particularly aware he should have been more observant about cancer signs – his sister Harriette had died of pancreatic cancer a year earlier at age 55. 'Being a typical bloke I didn't think it could happen to me. Little did I know.'
He credits Stef with saving his life. 'She said: 'I'm sorry to push you, but I'm worried.' Later I did a TV programme with the late, great Deborah James, where I was explaining that it was Stef who noticed my body had changed. And Deborah said doctors' ears prick up immediately when they hear a patient has come to see them because their partner is concerned. Because they're the most important audience.'
Today Black, 60, is fully recovered. 'The reason I tell my story is to say – please don't ignore symptoms and get yourself checked regularly. It's a weird thing to say but cancer gave me a voice.'
According to a 2022 paper from the drug company Merck, men undergo far fewer preventive check-ups than women, 43 per cent compared to 61 per cent.
Yes, women can prevaricate about help too, but on average men die earlier, become ill at a younger age and develop more chronic illnesses than women. They are also up to 50 per cent less likely to seek medical attention.
So why do men do this? Partly it's the stoical masculine stereotype that invites self-deception. 'You could call it motivated overlooking', says Ziyad Marar, the author of Intimacy and the forthcoming Noticing: How we Attend to the World and Each Other.
'While a woman will ask everyone for directions to her destination and get there, a man would rather stay lost than ask for outside help,' says Phillip Hodson, a psychotherapist.
'For men it evokes great shame, and stress hormones get released, and then you're much less likely to be pro-social and engage in getting help,' says Dr Ed Rainbow, a GP specialising in men's health and wellbeing.
Of course persuading another adult to take care of themselves can be tricky. You can't drag them to the doctor kicking and screaming like a child. 'Men generally are more likely to think; 'Oh it will go away. If I work hard, do some exercise, look at how much I'm drinking.' But that's not the way to go, obviously,' says semi-retired GP Chris Browne.
'As healthcare professionals, we see a lot of people who present too late. That particularly applies to anything cancerous, prostate, bowel, stomach, lung, and we try all the time to advertise how good it is to get checked. Because if you're in the 97 per cent of people for whom it's OK, it's good to know that.'
So how do experts advise we get them to make that crucial appointment?
1. Reframe the narrative
Therapist Stephen Joseph, author of Think Like A Therapist: Six Life-Changing Insights for Leading A Good Life explains that cajoling or pushing people can often have the opposite effect. You might say: 'I'm worried about you', but then give the person space to talk about it. Don't jump in immediately with advice, but listen actively, and help the person come to their own solutions.
'Be subtle enough to let the person come to his/her own conclusion,' says Murar. 'It's the psychology of persuasion. Normalise the behaviour by pointing to the fact that it would be odd if they didn't go and see the doctor.'
'Don't forget to be gentle with them' explains Dr Rainbow. If all else fails pull together some accurate factual information around symptoms that will help them make the decision of their own accord.
2. Acknowledge their fear
Your partner might be embarrassed to admit they're scared or nervous, says Phillip Hodson, a psychotherapist. Others, explains Dr Rainbow, might deflect how they're feeling with humour. 'Some men can't stop cracking jokes even if there's really awful stuff,' he says. 'Essentially, it's a way of trying to deal with whatever's going on – or not deal with it.'
It's important to take a step back and decode the jokes and remind yourself of how anxious they might be. Say something like, 'I do understand it's difficult to risk getting bad news. You're good at covering it up, but I know you're worried.' Similarly it's hard to predict exactly what may be worrying them. Remember to be reassuring, saying things like 'we'll cope financially'. Men may panic that they can't afford to be absent or take time off work. Also don't catastrophise. Talk about the good things that can happen if they do go to the doctor, not the bad ones that might happen if they don't.
3. Big up the family angle
Try things like 'We want you around. You've got to be the Dad. You've got to be here when the children are older,' advises Black. Avoid saying 'You're being selfish' or, 'If you don't go to the doctor, I'll leave you.' Guilt is not a good motivator. It makes us feel defensive. Although it is worth reminding them that their health impacts the whole family, not just you.'
Teenage children can also be powerful allies, says Dr Browne. 'Because kids will notice stuff they don't verbalise. If there's a family discussion about health, these things often come up.' Remind them how much they mean to you and that you're only asking them to look after themselves because you love them. 'Appeal to the man as the carer, the strong one, by saying, how do you expect to look after anyone else if you haven't looked after yourself?' says Murar.
4. Offer practical solutions
Taking the practical lead might take some of the pressure off. Start by trying to get a telephone chat with the doctor into their diary. Most practices will offer telephone consultation or virtual consultation, says Dr Browne. 'If you've got a mole, that's changed, the technology is so good with mobile phones now. With very reluctant men, it's OK to contact the man's GP and say: 'I'm really concerned. Could you invite him for a check up?'' says Dr Browne. 'He'll get a text/email saying it's time to have your check, please make an appointment. Then if he shows that to his partner, she can say: 'I'm really happy to come with you, if that would help'. Another good trick is to say: 'My friend at work had a check, and got the all-clear. It took half an hour. Why don't you do the same?''
It's also important to lead by example. Make sure you know your cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure numbers (everyone between 40 to 74 is eligible for a free NHS health check every five years). Do the 60+ bowel self-test. That way you'll be in optimum health if you need to support them through illness/treatment.
In the end if your partner rejects your offer to help don't insist. At the end of the day, their health is their responsibility, no matter how much you love them. You can return to it another time when they're in a more receptive state.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
The sex sabbatical: could taking a break from intimacy improve your life?
Name: The sex break. Age: Perennial. Appearance: Surprisingly frequent. Taking a break to have sex? You mean like at work? This is taking a break from sex. What? Who wants to do that? Er, 24% of American adults, according to a new survey. Why? Reasons vary, from 'wanting to learn other forms of intimacy' to favouring 'emotional closeness over physical connection'. All I'll say to that is: be careful what you wish for, survey respondents. In addition, 52% of the 2,000 adults surveyed said they had previously taken an extended break from sex, lasting six months on average. So? I've managed that – and then some. I think they mean on purpose. Everybody says it was on purpose afterwards. Who commissioned this survey? The sexual wellness brand Lelo. What does 'sexual wellness' mean? They sell vibrators, mainly. Sounds as if they have a vested interest in these survey results. 'Taking breaks from sex or focusing on other forms of physical intimacy can actually enhance a sex life,' says Lelo's chief marketing officer, Luka Matutinovic. Oh yeah? How? 'By reducing pressure and fostering exploration, as well as introducing new additions to your routine, like sex toys …' I knew it. In any case, most of those who had taken a sex sabbatical were very positive about it: 53% said it helped them appreciate sex more. It will tend to do that. But it's not all good news. None of this is good news so far. According to the survey, 30% of Americans believe romance is dead. I'm not surprised – what's the point? Fortunately, 69% of those not in relationships said they were happy being single. Good for them. What about the ones who are in a relationship? Forty-seven per cent of them said it can be healthy for a couple to have a sex break. Oh my word. On the other hand, 44% said their relationship wouldn't last a year without sex. Oh, naive respondents – you might surprise yourselves. Indeed. So if Americans are taking sex breaks and sabbaticals intentionally, does that mean they're having less sex than they used to? The latter assertion seems unquestionable – the percentage of American men and women not having sex has risen by every measure since 1982. That's quite an alarming statistic. Not if you own a vibrator company. Do say: 'Oh look, Newsnight's on.' Don't say: 'Could we try taking a break from taking a break?'


The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
RFK Jr's vaccine panel recommends new RSV treatment for infants
Robert F Kennedy Jr's reconstituted vaccine advisory panel recommended a new treatment to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants. The treatment, a new monoclonal antibody called clesrovimab, which will be sold under the brand name Enflonsia by Merck, was recommended by the powerful committee after being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) roughly two weeks ago. The tortured vote took place a day late and after rounds of questions from the panel's seven new members – all ideological allies of Trump health secretary, who views 'overmedicalization' as one of the greatest threats to American children. 'I think we need to ask ourselves what the parent would say given this data,' said Dr Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of operations management, who over hours of hearings has proven to be an outspoken skeptic of the medications under review. He said he would be 'concerned' and ultimately voted against recommending the monoclonal antibody. The panel, formally called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), is a critical federal advisory board that recommends how the agency should distribute vaccines and other interventions, such as monoclonal antibodies, to the American public. Kennedy's decision to remove its 17 serving members and replace them with hand-picked appointments has been roundly condemned by the medical establishment. The meetings are must-watch in scientific and medical circles. The vote is just one order of business for the panel, which is set to consider a much more controversial issue this afternoon – thimerosal in influenza vaccines. The ethylmercury-based preservative was removed from routine childhood vaccines in the early 2000s, but its use is considered an issue of settled science. Thimerosal use has remained a talking point for anti-vaccine advocates for decades. The preservative is contained in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccines. Experts have argued that removing the ingredient would force manufacturers to ship only single-use vials, which would be more expensive. Curtailing vaccine access has been a goal of anti-vaccine advocates. Kennedy unilaterally fired all 17 members of the ACIP in June citing conflicts of interest, and replaced the group with eight ideological allies. One of those appointees, Dr Michael Ross, dropped out of the panel on Tuesday after a government financial review, and after it was publicly reported that he was not employed by two universities where Kennedy said he held appointments. That has left seven members – far less than the panel's typical 19 voting members. The vote for members was whether to recommend clesrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, for all infants younger than eight months old born during or entering RSV season. They also voted on whether to include that drug in an important program called Vaccines for Children, through which about half of all American children access vaccines. Although five members ultimately voted yes, it was only after lengthy discussion, a no vote from Levi, and a second no from nurse Vicky Pebsworth, who served as the volunteer research director for one of the nation's oldest prominent anti-vaccine groups. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization among US infants, and most infants are infected in the first year of life. Between 2% and 3% are hospitalized, a majority of whom have no underlying health conditions. Before 2023, there was no long-acting prevention for RSV. The efficacy of monoclonal antibodies wanes over time. Although some ACIP members asked whether it was problematic to push the likely transmission of the disease to toddlerhood, CDC career scientists said that was the point – the most dangerous time for a child to contract RSV is in the first months of life. 'Part of what we want to do is protect them when they're most vulnerable,' said Adam McNeil, CDC deputy branch chief for epidemiology in respiratory viruses. 'The biggest impact among those newborns is getting those [ages] zero to two months [old] – and getting them through that vulnerable period.' In the 2024-2025 respiratory disease season, 57% of infants were either born to a vaccinated mother or received monoclonal antibodies at birth. As a result, hospitalizations from RSV were reduced by 30%-40%, according to CDC data.


The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
RFK Jr's vaccine panel recommends new RSV treatment for infants
Health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's reconstituted vaccine advisory panel recommended a new treatment to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants. The treatment, a new monoclonal antibody called clesrovimab, which will be sold under the brand name Enflonsia by Merck, was recommended by the powerful committee after being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) roughly two weeks ago. The tortured vote took place a day late and after rounds of questions from the panel's seven new members – all ideological allies of Kennedy, who views 'overmedicalization' as one of the greatest threats to American children. 'I think we need to ask ourselves what the parent would say given this data,' said Dr Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of operations management, who over hours of hearings has proven to be an outspoken skeptic of the medications under review. He said he would be 'concerned' and ultimately voted against recommending the monoclonal antibody. The panel, formally called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), is a critical federal advisory board that recommends how the agency should distribute vaccines and other interventions, such as monoclonal antibodies, to the American public. Kennedy's decision to remove its 17 serving members and replace them with hand-picked appointments has been roundly condemned by the medical establishment. The meetings are must-watch in scientific and medical circles. The vote is just one order of business for the panel, which is set to consider a much more controversial issue this afternoon – thimerosal in influenza vaccines. The ethylmercury-based preservative was removed from routine childhood vaccines in the early 2000s, but its use is considered an issue of settled science. Thimerosal use has remained a talking point for anti-vaccine advocates for decades. The preservative is contained in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccines. Experts have argued that removing the ingredient would force manufacturers to ship only single-use vials, which would be more expensive. Curtailing vaccine access has been a goal of anti-vaccine advocates. Kennedy unilaterally fired all 17 members of the ACIP in June citing conflicts of interest, and replaced the group with eight ideological allies. One of those appointees, Dr Michael Ross, dropped out of the panel on Tuesday after a government financial review, and after it was publicly reported that he was not employed by two universities where Kennedy said he held appointments. That has left seven members – far less than the panel's typical 19 voting members. The vote for members was whether to recommend clesrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, for all infants younger than eight months old born during or entering RSV season. They also voted on whether to include that drug in an important program called Vaccines for Children, through which about half of all American children access vaccines. Although five members ultimately voted yes, it was only after lengthy discussion, a 'no' vote from Levi, and a second 'no' from nurse Vicky Pebsworth, who served as the volunteer research director for one of the nation's oldest prominent anti-vaccine groups. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization among US infants, and most infants are infected in the first year of life. Between 2% and 3% are hospitalized, a majority of whom have no underlying health conditions. Prior to 2023, there was no long-acting prevention for RSV. The efficacy of monoclonal antibodies wanes over time. Although some ACIP members asked whether it was problematic to push the likely transmission of the disease to toddlerhood, CDC career scientists said that was the point – the most dangerous time for a child to contract RSV is in the first months of life. 'Part of what we want to do is protect them when they're most vulnerable,' said Adam McNeil, CDC deputy branch chief for epidemiology in respiratory viruses. 'The biggest impact among those newborns is getting those [ages] zero to two months [old] – and getting them through that vulnerable period.' In the 2024-2025 respiratory disease season, 57% of infants were either born to a vaccinated mother or received monoclonal antibodies at birth. As a result, hospitalizations from RSV were reduced by 30%-40%, according to CDC data.