# The Art of Saying “I Don’t Know Yet”

*Four words, and what each must carry to be honest and still useful*

Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD · November 5, 2026 · The Examination Room

Consider a hypothetical patient who has had a symptom for six weeks. It is real, it is wearing her down, and the first round of tests has come back without an explanation. She has taken a morning off work to hear the results, and she asks the question anyone would ask: "So what is it?"

There are several ways to answer her. One is to give her a name, almost any name, because a name is a comfort and the silence after her question is uncomfortable for both people in the room. Another is to give her a fog: it could be a number of things; these things can be hard to pin down; let's see how it goes. The third is harder to say well. It begins with four words. *I don't know yet.*

Each of those words has a job, and the sentence is honest only when all four are doing theirs. Said badly, it is a shrug with a future tense attached. Said well, it may be the most useful sentence in a difficult visit, because it tells the truth about where the inquiry stands and commits someone to taking it further. This essay is an attempt to say what the difference consists of, word by word, and then to follow the sentence out of the room and into the weeks that come after it.

## What She Is Asking

Before the four words, the question. "So what is it?" sounds like one question and is usually several. She may be asking what is causing the symptom. She may be asking whether it is dangerous, which is a different question and sometimes an easier one to answer. She may be asking whether it will go away, and when. And she may be asking what to do on Monday: whether to go back to work, whether to cancel the trip, what to tell the people at home. Uncertainty about the first of these need not make the others unanswerable, and a physician who answers them all with the same shrug has let one unknown spread across the whole conversation.

There is an important difference between not knowing the answer and not knowing what to do next. The two can coincide, but they need not. A clinician may be uncertain about the cause of a symptom while being able to explain which questions matter now, what information is missing, and how the situation will be reconsidered. The reverse is also true: a name can be precise while the next step remains genuinely hard. A diagnosis does not settle a plan, and the absence of one does not forbid a plan.

That distinction keeps uncertainty in its proper place. If I say only that I do not know, she may reasonably hear that the entire situation has become unreadable. A more useful account gives the uncertainty an outline. Here is the part I understand. Here is the part I am still trying to explain. Here is why the difference matters to what we do next.

The outline has a further virtue: it makes disagreement possible. She may care most about a question the physician has quietly treated as secondary. The physician has been thinking about cause; she has been thinking about whether she can keep her job if this goes on, or whether the symptom will still be there at a family wedding in the spring. Laid out in parts, the conversation can show that the two people in the room have been using the word *answer* differently, and that some of what she needs can be given today, whatever the tests eventually say.

## I

The first word is a pronoun, and it matters that it is singular. There are ways of reporting uncertainty that move it somewhere else. *The tests don't show anything.* *Medicine doesn't really understand this.* Both may be true, and both quietly take the speaker out of the sentence. "I" keeps the responsibility in the room. It says that a particular person has been thinking about this problem and intends to go on doing so.

The most famous confession of ignorance in Western philosophy is not, on close reading, a model a physician can simply adopt. In Plato's *Apology*, Socrates tells the jury that the oracle at Delphi had called him the wisest of men, and that, puzzled, he set out to find someone wiser. He questioned the politicians and found that they thought they knew what they did not. He questioned the poets and found that they could not explain their own poems. Then he went to the artisans. In Benjamin Jowett's translation, he admits that they "did know many things of which I was ignorant," and that in this they were wiser than he. But even the good artisans fell into the poets' error: "because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom."

A physician is an artisan in Socrates's sense, and the passage describes the professional danger more precisely than the slogan usually drawn from the speech, that Socrates knew only that he knew nothing. The doctor who announced, with Socrates, that he knew nothing would be misrepresenting his trade, and would be no use to anyone. The knowledge of the craft is real. The error Socrates found among the craftsmen is a specific one: competence in one region lending a borrowed authority to judgments outside it. In the clinic it takes recognizable forms. Being good at recognizing common patterns makes it tempting to believe that an uncommon presentation must be one of them. Being able to rule out the dangerous explanations makes it tempting to speak as though one had found the actual explanation. "I don't know yet" is the artisan's version of Socratic honesty. It marks the edge of the craft from the inside, by someone who knows where the edge is because he has worked up to it.

The pronoun also says whose knowledge is limited, and this matters more than it seems. Three quite different situations hide behind the same words. In the first, the uncertainty is mine: I have not worked it out, and a colleague with different training might. In the second, the uncertainty belongs to the record: the information exists somewhere, in another clinic's results or a specialist's letter from three years ago, but it is not in front of me. In the third, the uncertainty belongs to medicine: the question has no answer that anyone could currently give. The collective "we don't know" smudges these together, and they call for different things. The first calls for more thought or another opinion. The second calls for a request for records and the patience to wait for them. The third calls for an honest account of the limits of the field and a plan for living within them. The patient deserves to know which of the three she is facing, because only then can she judge what the next step is worth.

Finally, the pronoun obliges its speaker to look at his own motives, which is the least comfortable part. The pull toward sounding certain is strong in medicine, and not all of it serves the patient. Certainty makes a conversation feel orderly, and it ends the conversation sooner. It protects the speaker from being seen to hesitate. Patients are not to blame for wanting an answer; wanting one is the most natural thing in the world, and physicians want one too. But a physician's need to appear confident should not silently become a patient's burden, and it becomes exactly that when a confident sentence fails to survive the afternoon.

## Don't

The negative is the honest part, and the best description of the discipline it requires was written by a man who trained in medicine and left it. John Keats registered as a student at Guy's Hospital in London in October 1815 and passed his examination at Apothecaries' Hall the following July. Before long he had chosen poetry. In December 1817, writing to his brothers George and Tom, he described walking home from a Christmas pantomime in a disquisition with a friend, when several things "dove-tailed" in his mind and he saw what quality went to form a man of achievement, especially in literature, the quality Shakespeare possessed so enormously. He called it Negative Capability: "when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." Then he gave his counterexample. Coleridge, he wrote, "would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge."

I do not want to conscript Keats into medicine. He was writing about poets, and the letter goes on to say that with a great poet the sense of beauty overcomes every other consideration, which is not a rule any clinician should adopt. But two phrases in it describe the clinic from the inside. The first is *irritable reaching*. In the physiology of Keats's period, irritability was also a technical term, for the property of living tissue, muscle above all, that makes it contract when stimulated. Whether or not he meant the echo, it suits the phrase: the reach after an answer is less a decision than a reflex, the mind contracting at the touch of something unresolved. Any clinician who has felt the itch to close a question because it is open, before the evidence has closed it, knows the twitch.

The second phrase is *half-knowledge*, and it is the more important, because in medicine half-knowledge is the ordinary state and full knowledge the occasional one. Most clinical decisions are made with some of the relevant facts and not others, and the art is in deciding well inside that condition. Coleridge's failing, as Keats saw it, was not ignorance; it was an inability to remain in partial knowledge without completing it with something. The clinician's version of that failing has a name in the literature on diagnostic error, premature closure: settling on an explanation and ceasing to consider others before the explanation has earned it.

A premature name tempts both people in the room, for different reasons. For the patient, a name ends the search. It gives her something to tell her employer and her family, something to look up, a community of others who have it, and the reassuring sense that the trouble has edges. For the physician, a name ends the discomfort of an open question, brings the visit to a close, and satisfies a record that asks for something to put in the diagnosis field. That the temptation is shared makes it stronger. Two people who both want the question closed can close it together very quickly, and neither may notice until the name fails to fit.

None of this means that every working diagnosis is a dishonesty. Medicine proceeds by provisional interpretations; it could not proceed otherwise. A phrase like "this looks most like a viral illness that is taking its time" can be exactly right. The test is whether the limits travel with the label. "This looks most like X; here is what would make me think otherwise; here is when we will check" is a provisional interpretation with its edges showing. "It's X" is the same interpretation with the edges filed off. The first lets the patient recognize the moment the story stops fitting. The second leaves her alone with the discrepancy.

And here the analogy with Keats has to bend. A poet may rest in mystery; that may even be the point. A physician cannot rest. He has to keep working inside the uncertainty, which means deciding, in the meantime, what to test and what to leave, what to treat and what to watch, without the knowledge that would make those decisions easy. The negative in the sentence says where the work stands. It does not say the work has stopped.

## Know

The middle word needs the most unpacking, because *knowing* covers several different states, and a patient cannot see which one is meant.

The clearest account of this I have found comes from an unexpected quarter. Sherman Kent, who chaired the CIA's Board of National Estimates from 1952 to 1967, wrote an essay called "Words of Estimative Probability," which begins with a briefing officer pointing at a map and making three statements. At this location there is a new airfield whose longest runway is 10,000 feet. It is almost certainly a military airfield. The terrain is such that the other side could easily lengthen the runways, and it is possible that they will. Kent observes that these are three different kinds of statement. The first describes something knowable and known. The second describes something knowable in principle but not precisely known to the speaker; the evidence makes the case, he says, perhaps ninety percent of the way, and the qualifier is there to show that the case is a ninety and not a hundred. The third concerns something that no one alive can know, because the other side may not yet have made up its mind. For that kind, Kent says, simple prudence requires a qualifier that shows "a decent reticence before the unknowable."

Clinical knowledge sorts the same way. Suppose, to make the hypothetical patient concrete, that her symptom is tiredness. Her blood count is normal, and so are the tests of her thyroid. Those are observations, Kent's first kind: knowable and known. From them follow judgments of the second kind: certain explanations have become unlikely, and something in her account of her sleep has made another more likely, though not certain. Some alternatives remain unresolved, two or three possibilities that the first round of tests was not designed to tell apart. Some information is simply unavailable: an earlier result from a clinic she attended before she moved, which might show whether this began before or after a particular change. And one question belongs to Kent's third kind. Whether the tiredness will lift over the next month may be unknowable today, not because anyone has failed to find out but because it has not happened yet. The body, in that respect, has not made up its mind.

An honest account of uncertainty sorts these aloud, so that she can see the shape of what is known instead of a single smudge labeled *unclear*. And sorting has a benefit that is easy to miss: it lets confidence and uncertainty sit side by side without contaminating each other. "I am quite confident that this is not caused by anemia, and I do not yet know what is causing it" is two sentences of very different strength, and both are true. Vague language makes them sound equally doubtful. Precise language lets her lean on the first while the second is being worked out.

Kent's essay also contains a story that should be required reading for anyone who uses words of likelihood for a living. In March 1951 a National Intelligence Estimate judged that a Soviet bloc attack on Yugoslavia that year "should be considered a serious possibility." A few days later the chairman of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, in informal conversation with Kent, asked suddenly what odds the phrase had been meant to convey. Kent's own reading was about 65 to 35 in favor of an attack, which jolted his questioner, who had read it as much lower. Kent then asked his colleagues on the Board what they had had in mind when they agreed to the wording. The lowest had been thinking of about 20 to 80, the highest of about 80 to 20. The same phrase had been agreed upon by people who disagreed about nearly everything it meant.

I suspect that *possible*, *unlikely* and *probably nothing* behave the same way in an examination room, and that it helps to say, in plainer terms, roughly what each word is standing in for. Sometimes a number is honest and useful. Sometimes it is not, because the figure that exists describes a population and she is not a population, or because the number would be more precise than anything anyone actually knows. Then a comparison may do better than a percentage: more likely than not; unlikely, but not so unlikely that we should stop looking; a possibility I would be surprised by. Whatever the form, the aim is that the word in her head should be roughly the word in mine.

Every one of these statements also carries a date, though the date is rarely spoken. The blood count was normal on the morning it was drawn. The judgment about likelihood holds for the evidence as it stands this week. Kent's estimators were writing in March about an attack that might come at any time in the year, and their phrase, whatever odds it meant, was a statement about March. Saying the date aloud, even only as "so far" or "as of today," keeps a provisional judgment from being heard as a permanent one, and it gives both people permission to change their minds when the evidence moves.

## What the Listener Hears

Heard from the other chair, all this candor can sound quite different. Uncertainty can sound like abandonment. A patient who came for an answer and leaves with a careful account of what is not known may feel that she has been handed the problem back. And a physician who qualifies every sentence can make a perfectly reasonable plan unintelligible, so that the listener cannot find the instruction inside the hedges.

There is some evidence about how such words land. In a questionnaire study published in 2002, Ogden and colleagues asked sixty-six general practitioners and 550 patients in the south-east of England how various expressions of a doctor's uncertainty would affect a patient's confidence. Most of both groups judged verbal expressions such as "Let's see what happens" to be the most damaging, and the patients rated those verbal expressions as more damaging than the doctors expected. Behaviors such as consulting a book or a computer, by contrast, were seen as harmless or even reassuring. A different study, by Gordon, Joos and Byrne in 2000, audiotaped visits by 216 patients to forty-three physicians in a university-affiliated general medicine clinic. Physicians expressed uncertainty in 71 percent of visits. Those who expressed more of it also used more positive talk and partnership building and gave more information, and expressions of uncertainty were associated with greater patient satisfaction, though not independently of those other behaviors.

Both studies have limits that matter. The first measured what people believed would affect confidence, not what actually happened in visits; the second found an association within one clinic and could not separate uncertainty from the company it kept. Read together, carefully, they suggest something I find plausible on other grounds. The phrase people disliked most was the fog, the empty "let's see." The uncertainty that went with satisfaction did not travel alone; it arrived with information and with a sense of being worked on together. Uncertainty with an outline is a different object from uncertainty without one, even when the facts behind them are identical.

The finding about books and computers deserves a second look, too. One reading of it is that people trust uncertainty more when they can see it being worked on. A physician who says "let me check that" and then checks, in the room, has admitted exactly as much ignorance as one who says "let's see what happens." What he has conveyed is entirely different: that the not-knowing has a method attached to it, and that the method is already running.

The Gordon study contains a second finding that cuts two ways. Physicians expressed more uncertainty to patients with more education, a greater desire for information and more questions. That is partly responsiveness, and good: people differ in how much detail they want, and some patients would rather hear the next step than the full map. But it also means that the patient who asks less may be told less of the truth about what is known. Respecting a person's preference for detail is right. Assuming the preference from her manner, her education or her silence is another matter. The better course is to ask how much she would like to know, and to leave the rest of the map available if she later wants it.

If every sentence carries so many conditions that the listener cannot find its meaning, I have not been more honest. I have only handed the work of making sense of it to the person with the least information to do it with.

## Yet

The last word turns the sentence from a verdict into a progress report, and it is also the easiest of the four to abuse.

Montaigne has a passage that explains what the word is for, though he was writing about something else. In the long essay known as the "Apology for Raymond Sebond," he describes the difficulty of the Pyrrhonian skeptics, who could find no way to state their doubt without contradicting it. When they say "I doubt," Montaigne writes, in the Cotton translation revised by William Carew Hazlitt, "they are presently taken by the throat," made to confess that at least they know that they doubt. So they shelter under a medical comparison. When they pronounce "I know not," they say that the proposition "carries off itself with the rest, no more nor less than rhubarb, that drives out the ill humours, and carries itself off with them." This idea, Montaigne says, is better understood as a question, "What do I know?", which he bore as his motto with the emblem of a balance.

Rhubarb, in the medicine of Montaigne's time, was a purgative, and the comparison is exact. A good statement of doubt drives out the false certainties and then leaves the body itself; it does not settle in as a new dogma, not even the dogma that nothing can be known. That is what *yet* adds to *I don't know*. It says that the not-knowing is meant to pass, that it is a stage in the treatment and not the condition. A physician's "I don't know" without the *yet* risks becoming a permanent resident: the symptom filed under unexplained, the question no longer asked.

But *yet* is a promise about time, and a promise needs terms. Without them it is only a courteous way of ending the conversation. The word can describe at least three different positions, and the patient deserves to know which one she is in. In the first, we are awaiting information: a result, a set of old records, a specialist's view. Then *yet* has something like a date attached, and the date should be said. In the second, we are observing a course: the passage of time is itself the test, and what the symptom does over the next weeks will tell us more than another blood sample would today. Then *yet* has a checkpoint, and the checkpoint should be named, along with what we will be watching for. In the third, we are facing a question that may never be fully resolved. Some symptoms settle without ever being named. Some are lived with for years under a description rather than a diagnosis. Then *yet* must be honest that the answer may not arrive in the form she hopes, and the plan must be built for living well in the meantime.

The word should not be offered as reassurance merely because reassurance would make the moment easier. A *yet* that implies a diagnosis is coming, when no one can say that, is a small lie with a long tail.

There is also the matter of credit. A patient who has carried an unexplained symptom for a long time may have heard *yet* before, from several people, and each unkept *yet* has drawn down the word's value. For her the sentence arrives already discounted. The remedy is to attach to it something she can check: a date, a name, a test with a stated purpose. A promise she can verify is worth more than one she is asked to trust, and after enough disappointments it may be the only kind she is able to accept.

In Punjabi, my first language, the sentence comes out as ਮੈਨੂੰ ਅਜੇ ਪਤਾ ਨਹੀਂ (*mainūṅ aje patā nahīṅ*). The grammar puts the speaker on the receiving end: ਮੈਨੂੰ (*mainūṅ*) means "to me," as though knowledge were something that arrives rather than something one seizes. ਅਜੇ (*aje*) means yet, or still, or as of now. And ਪਤਾ (*patā*), the everyday word for knowing about something, is also the word written on an envelope: an address, a whereabouts, a trace. I would not build a theory of Punjabi thought on any of this, and I would distrust anyone who did. But it offers a useful picture. Not knowing yet, said properly, is like knowing the street and not the house. One can say which neighborhood we are in, which doors have already been knocked on and found empty, and which one we will try next.

Montaigne's emblem adds one more thing. A balance at rest, its pans level, is his image of suspended judgment. A physician cannot keep the pans level for long. Decisions have to be made while the evidence is still being weighed: whether to treat now or wait, whether to test further or watch, whether she should go back to work on Monday. *Yet* names the interval in which those decisions are made without the knowledge that would make them easy, and it obliges the person who says it to make them carefully, and to revisit them when the balance moves.

## An Owner for the Next Step

A promise with terms needs someone to keep it. This is where the first word of the sentence returns, because the "I" that admitted the limit is also the "I" that has to carry the plan forward.

Follow the imagined plan out of the room. What is being done next, and why? If a test has been ordered, she should know what question it is meant to answer, so that she can understand the result when it comes and not merely receive it. What result, or what change in the symptom, would alter the picture? When will the two of them speak again, and who will call whom? If the result arrives first through a message on her phone, at night, as a column of numbers with a flag beside one of them, who will tell her what it means, and how soon? And what should she do if things change before the next conversation? In general terms, the answer is to make contact sooner, but she should know how, and that the call would be welcome.

None of these are elaborate. Together they are the difference between a plan and a reassuring future tense. "We'll keep an eye on it" can describe a careful arrangement of checkpoints, or it can describe nothing at all, and from the patient's chair the two sound the same. The arrangement has to be said aloud for her to know which one she has been given.

This is also where her questions, as opposed to the physician's, should shape the plan. If what she most needs this week is a way to keep working while the cause is pursued, that need does not have to wait for the cause. A note for her employer, an adjustment to her hours, a plan for the days when the symptom is worst: these can be settled today, with full honesty about the larger uncertainty. One of the quieter cruelties of diagnostic uncertainty is that it can postpone help that never depended on the diagnosis.

And the owner should be named. Not "someone will call," but who. A plan whose next step belongs to no one belongs, in practice, to the patient's persistence, and she has already spent six weeks on that.

The singular has a limit that should be admitted here. Very little in modern medicine is done by one person. The next step may belong to a laboratory, a radiologist, a specialist with a waiting list, a pharmacist, an insurer. The "I" of the sentence does not claim that one physician controls all of that. It claims something narrower and more useful: that one person has undertaken to keep track of the whole, to notice when a piece goes missing, and to be the person the patient can ask. In a system of many hands, that is often the very thing that is absent.

## When More Is Not Better

There is an obvious way to shorten the interval that *yet* describes: test more. Sometimes that is exactly right. Sometimes it is the quickest route into a second, longer uncertainty.

Tests find things, and the things they find need explaining. In a national survey published in 2019, Ishani Ganguli and colleagues asked American internists about what they called cascades of care: chains of further testing and treatment set off by an incidental finding. Of 376 respondents, from a panel representative of the American College of Physicians' membership, nearly all, 99.4 percent, reported having experienced such cascades. They reported that cascades had caused their patients psychological harm (68.4 percent), physical harm (15.6 percent) and financial burden (57.5 percent), and had cost the physicians themselves time, frustration and anxiety. These are physicians' reports, recalled and self-selected, not measured outcomes in patients; the survey cannot say how often any of this happens. But it describes a mechanism every clinician will recognize. A test performed to settle one uncertainty produces an abnormality nobody was looking for, the abnormality produces its own uncertainty, and the patient who came with one unexplained symptom leaves with two unexplained findings and a new appointment.

That is not an argument for restraint as a universal virtue. Failing to look further is its own error, and the missed diagnosis is no less real for being the opposite mistake. The argument is for proportion, which means asking of each possible test what it is for. What question would it answer? What would we do differently with each possible result? Is waiting itself informative here, so that time will tell us more, and more safely, than another investigation would today? These are questions about a particular person in a particular situation, and they do not have general answers. But they can be asked aloud, with her, and her view of the trade between knowing sooner and risking more belongs in the answer.

*Yet* can be abused in both directions. It can become a license to stop looking, the open question quietly closed by neglect. And it can become a license never to stop, the investigation pursued past the point where it could help because ending it would mean saying that some questions do not resolve. An honest *yet* sits between those, and it moves as the evidence does.

## What She Can Carry

Return, then, to the woman who took a morning off work to ask what it is. She will leave without a name. What I would hope she carries out of the room is something more useful than the name she does not have and kinder than the fog she does not deserve: an account of her situation with its parts distinguished. What is known, and how firmly. What is not yet known, and what we are doing about it. What may never be known, and how we will manage in the meantime. What she can do on Monday. Whom she will hear from, and when.

How much of that account she wants is hers to decide. Some people want the whole map, with every road marked and every probability shaded. Some want only the next turning. Both are reasonable, and a person may want one today and the other next week. The physician's task is to have the map ready and to offer it at the scale she asks for, without deciding for her, from her manner or her silence, how much truth she can bear.

There is one more thing hidden in the Punjabi sentence, and it is the reason I prefer it to the English. ਅਜੇ, the word for *yet*, also means *still*; with ਵੀ after it, ਅਜੇ ਵੀ, it means even now. The same word that looks forward to an answer not yet arrived also describes something continuing in the present. So ਮੈਨੂੰ ਅਜੇ ਪਤਾ ਨਹੀਂ carries a second sentence folded inside it. It says that I do not know yet, and it says that the not-knowing is still being worked on, by someone who has not put it down.

That is the most a physician can honestly promise in such a visit, and it is more than it sounds. Not an answer by a date, which no one can guarantee, but the continuation of attention, with its terms stated: the street named, the searched doors shaded, the next stop marked, and a day on which someone will walk the next stretch of it with her.

## Evidence and Editorial Note

**Documented findings.** The essay relies on the author's public biography: a family physician whose first language is Punjabi. Plato's *Apology*, the oracle, and Socrates's examination of politicians, poets and artisans, quoted from Benjamin Jowett's translation (Project Gutenberg). Keats's registration at Guy's Hospital in October 1815 and his passing the examination at Apothecaries' Hall in July 1816: the University of Victoria's critical chronology *Mapping Keats's Progress*. Keats's letter to George and Tom Keats of December 1817, including the walk home from the pantomime, Negative Capability, and Coleridge's incapacity to remain content with half-knowledge: quoted from *Letters of John Keats to His Family and Friends*, ed. Sidney Colvin (Project Gutenberg). The technical sense of irritability in the physiology of the period: standard history of physiology; the possible echo in Keats is the author's reading. Premature closure as a term in the literature on diagnostic error: standard usage. Sherman Kent, "Words of Estimative Probability," as published by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence ([PDF](https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Words-of-Estimative-Probability.pdf)): the three kinds of statement, the phrase "a decent reticence before the unknowable," NIE 29-51 of March 1951 and "serious possibility," Kent's reading of about 65 to 35, and his colleagues' readings from about 20 to 80 to about 80 to 20. Kent's chairmanship of the Board of National Estimates, 1952–1967: the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence. Ogden, Fuks, Gardner and colleagues, "Doctors expressions of uncertainty and patient confidence," *Patient Education and Counseling* 48(2), 2002: questionnaires from 66 GPs and 550 patients in south-east England; verbal expressions such as "Let's see what happens" judged most damaging; patients rated verbal expressions as more detrimental than GPs anticipated; consulting a book or computer seen as benign or beneficial (PubMed abstract, PMID 12401420). Gordon, Joos and Byrne, "Physician expressions of uncertainty during patient encounters," *Patient Education and Counseling* 40(1), 2000: 43 physicians, 216 patients, a university-affiliated general medicine clinic; uncertainty expressed in 71 percent of visits; association with positive talk, partnership building, information-giving and satisfaction, not independent of those behaviors; more uncertainty expressed to patients with more education, desire for information and questions (PubMed abstract, PMID 10705065). Montaigne, "Apology for Raymond Sebond" (*Essays*, Book II), in Charles Cotton's translation as revised by William Carew Hazlitt (Project Gutenberg): the Pyrrhonians taken by the throat, the rhubarb comparison, and "What do I know?" borne with the emblem of a balance; rhubarb as a purgative in older medicine is standard history. Ganguli and colleagues, "Cascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of Physicians," *JAMA Network Open*, 2019: 376 internists, 44.7 percent response rate; 99.4 percent reported cascades; reported psychological harm 68.4 percent, physical harm 15.6 percent, financial burden 57.5 percent (PubMed abstract, PMID 31617925). The Punjabi ਅਜੇ (*aje*: yet, still, as of now) and ਪਤਾ (*patā*: address, whereabouts, trace; knowledge of something): Wiktionary entries as compiled by kaikki.org; ਮੈਨੂੰ and ਅਜੇ ਵੀ: general Punjabi usage. **Vendor representations.** None.

**Recollection and tradition.** That the author's first language is Punjabi is part of his published biography. The patient in this essay, her symptom, her tests and her plan are hypothetical and illustrative; they do not describe a real person, and no actual diagnosis, test or follow-up is reported. No remembered conversation of the author's is described, and no particular phrasing is claimed as his habitual practice. The glosses on Punjabi describe ordinary usage, not a belief attributed to Punjabi speakers.

**Analysis and forecast.** The reading of each word in the sentence, the applications of Socrates, Keats, Montaigne and Kent to clinical work, the reading of the two communication studies together, and the address metaphor are the author's interpretation as of November 6, 2026; they are reflections on communication, not instructions for diagnosis, testing or any standard of care. **Independence.** This essay is not sponsored by any institution, company, health system or technology developer. It is personal reflection, not medical advice; readers seeking care should contact their own physician's office.



## Related reading

- [The Intern Who Was Afraid to Make the Wrong Call](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/the-intern-who-was-afraid-to-make-the-wrong-call/)
- [Waiting for the Result](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/waiting-for-the-result/)
- [Hope, Measured Carefully](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/hope-measured-carefully/)