Can Doctors Check Themselves? The Ethics and Risks of Self-Diagnosis

September 30, 2025 •

4 min read

According to the American Medical Association (AMA), physicians should generally not treat themselves or members of their immediate families due to potential compromises in professional objectivity. While the convenience of self-diagnosis might seem appealing, the question of 'Can doctors check themselves?' delves into a complex intersection of medical ethics, objectivity, and patient safety—even when the patient is the doctor themselves.

Quick Summary

Physicians are ethically discouraged from self-diagnosing or self-treating due to the compromised objectivity inherent in the process. This can lead to misdiagnosis, overlooked serious conditions, and other potentially dangerous outcomes. Ethical guidelines outline limited exceptions for minor issues or emergencies but emphasize the importance of seeking an independent primary care physician.

Key Points

Ethical Prohibition: Medical ethics advise physicians against treating themselves or close family members to maintain professional objectivity.
Objectivity is Critical: Self-treatment risks are high because personal emotions, biases, and denial can compromise a doctor’s professional judgment.
Risks are Severe: Case examples show that self-diagnosis can lead to dangerous misdiagnoses, delayed treatment for serious conditions, and inappropriate medication.
Limited Exceptions: Self-treatment is only acceptable for minor, short-term ailments or in emergencies when no other doctor is available. Prescribing controlled substances to oneself is prohibited.
Seeking Independent Care: The safest and most ethical approach is for a physician to have their own primary care doctor for check-ups and illness management.
Barriers to Care: Many doctors delay seeking care due to burnout, lack of time, and the cultural stigma around admitting weakness in the medical profession.
Benefit to Patients: A healthy physician who prioritizes their own well-being by seeking proper care is better equipped to provide high-quality care to their patients.

The Medical Consensus: Objectivity Above All

Medical ethics codes from prominent organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), explicitly caution against physicians acting as their own doctors. This stance is not meant to undermine a physician's expertise but is rooted in the fundamental principle of professional objectivity. A doctor's personal feelings, biases, and emotional investment in their own health can cloud their medical judgment, leading to flawed decisions that would never be made for a patient in a typical clinical setting.

This principle is famously summarized by the adage, often attributed to Sir William Osler: “A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient”. The objectivity gap is the primary reason why even the most knowledgeable and experienced doctors are vulnerable to errors when assessing their own health. Merging the roles of physician and patient removes the critical professional distance required for high-quality clinical care and can result in significant risk.

The Dangers of Self-Diagnosis for Physicians

The practice of self-diagnosis and self-treatment by medical professionals is fraught with serious dangers, some of which have resulted in critical, and even fatal, consequences. Several case studies illustrate the severity of these risks:

Missed Serious Conditions: One physician, convinced he had a viral pneumonia, self-treated his symptoms only to discover later that he had diffuse bilateral pulmonary emboli (blood clots in his lungs), a life-threatening condition he had dangerously misdiagnosed.
Delayed Proper Treatment: A hand surgeon diagnosed his own carpal tunnel syndrome and even performed surgery on himself, only to later discover through proper testing that the problem was located in his shoulder and not his wrist. The self-diagnosis delayed the correct treatment for years.
Emotional Bias and Denial: Physicians may find it difficult to confront a potentially serious or humbling diagnosis, leading to denial and a delay in seeking the necessary professional care. The psychological impact of an incorrect diagnosis can lead to unnecessary anxiety and stress.
Confirmation Bias: A doctor's pre-existing medical knowledge can lead to confirmation bias, where they interpret their symptoms in a way that confirms their initial, and potentially incorrect, self-diagnosis.

Limited Exceptions to the Rule

While the prohibition on self-treatment is firm, ethical guidelines acknowledge two primary exceptions. These exceptions must be handled with extreme caution and do not apply to complex or chronic conditions.

Emergency Situations: In an emergency or an isolated setting where no other qualified physician is available, a doctor may treat themselves or a family member until alternative medical help can be arranged.
Minor, Short-Term Problems: Routine care for minor, short-term issues, such as a common cold or a simple viral infection, may be acceptable. However, physicians are strongly discouraged from self-prescribing controlled substances under any circumstances.

Comparison: Seeking Objective Care vs. Self-Treatment

To highlight the critical differences, the following table compares the two approaches to a doctor's health.


Aspect	Seeking Objective Care	Self-Treatment
Objectivity	A consulting physician provides impartial, unbiased judgment, free from personal feelings and denial.	Personal feelings and emotional biases can compromise professional judgment and lead to flawed decision-making.
Thoroughness	The doctor-patient dynamic ensures a complete medical history is taken and a full, non-intrusive physical examination is performed.	A physician may fail to probe sensitive areas or perform intimate parts of an examination on themselves, leading to incomplete assessment.
Expertise	The consulting physician brings fresh, outside expertise to the case, potentially identifying issues the other doctor overlooked due to familiarity.	The treating doctor may be inclined to treat problems that are beyond their own training or specialized expertise.
Documentation	A complete medical record is created, ensuring continuity of care and proper management of the condition.	Documentation may be inadequate or non-existent, creating an incomplete medical history that can be risky in the future.
Patient Psychology	The patient role is distinct, promoting better communication, adherence, and trust with the consulting physician.	The doctor-patient dual role can be difficult, leading to minimization of symptoms or resistance to professional advice.
Risk of Harm	Significantly reduced risk of misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and worsening health outcomes due to independent assessment.	High risk of errors, including improper treatment, medication misuse, and potentially fatal misdiagnosis.

Why Doctors Still Delay Seeking Care

Despite the risks, many physicians admit to delaying or avoiding proper medical care for themselves. A survey by the Canadian Medical Association found that many doctors neglect their own health, often citing a lack of time, fear of appearing weak, or concerns about confidentiality. A culture of rugged independence and perfectionism within the medical community can discourage admitting vulnerability. Additionally, a busy schedule, long hours, and the emotional toll of the profession can lead to burnout, which further inhibits a doctor's ability to prioritize their own health needs.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Check-Up

The consensus across medical ethics is clear: no doctor should be their own primary care physician. While physicians are exceptionally knowledgeable, the very nature of their training and the need for emotional detachment when treating others make them vulnerable when faced with their own health issues. Seeking objective care from a colleague is the responsible, ethical, and safest course of action, ensuring a thorough assessment and mitigating the inherent risks of self-treatment. Prioritizing one's own health, including having a personal physician, is a crucial part of professional responsibility and helps combat burnout, ultimately benefiting both the physician and their patients.

For more detailed guidance on this topic, consult the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, which outlines specific opinions on treating self or family.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, but only in very specific and limited circumstances. Ethical guidelines permit self-treatment for minor, short-term problems like a common cold, or in an emergency situation where no other qualified physician is available.

A doctor's personal feelings, emotional investment, and denial can all interfere with the sound medical judgment required for proper diagnosis and treatment. The professional distance necessary for unbiased clinical decisions is lost.

The risks include misdiagnosing a serious illness as something minor, delaying appropriate care for worsening conditions, overlooking underlying health issues, and prescribing improper medication.

Some state medical boards allow prescribing for minor, short-term issues, but it is generally discouraged. However, prescribing controlled substances for oneself is strictly prohibited in almost all jurisdictions.

Yes, it is considered best practice and is ethically recommended for physicians to have a personal primary care physician. This ensures they receive objective, confidential, and thorough medical care.

Physicians may delay seeking professional help due to lack of time, fear of appearing weak to colleagues, reluctance to bother a fellow doctor, or concerns about confidentiality, especially in smaller medical communities.

Informal advice is common, but medical boards advise against establishing a formal treating relationship with family members or close friends due to the same risks of compromised objectivity and coercion that apply to self-treatment.

Self-prescribing, particularly controlled substances, can lead to serious consequences, including disciplinary action from state medical licensing boards, fines, and potential loss of license.