--1--
I sympathize. I agree that it was really rather bad to say these things, but only someone who has been in the position of one who has tried somewhat to give counsel in favour of one option, believing that it would be for the good of the patient, and had undesirable things happen and the patient return to blame the doctor for them, can truly understand this sort of thing. Hopefully none of us will become jaded or tired enough to ever say these things in front of a patient. The unfortunate truth is that many of us will have similar thoughts in future. So although it was very bad to say these things in front of colleagues and other people, it's unfortunately true that certain patients give a lot more trouble than others.

A very nice tutor once said something similar. He said that it's important that you don't influence the patient's choice; that you remain non-directive; that you simply present the risks and benefits and allow the patient to make the choice, because, ironically, even though the complications are rare, it's the indecisive patients, who require the counselling push to make a decision, who will encounter these rare complications and who will return to blame and haunt you.

Perhaps it's not always true, but all you need is for it to be true sometimes for your day to rapidly sour.

--2--
I sympathize. I guess we always have to see things for ourselves; that we can't just accept things verbatim without some sort of evidence.

In any case, now that you've experienced it and you know that you can't change him, (or make him 'not put himself first all the time', which is sort of the same as changing) there are a few things you need to do, and one or two choices.

First, you need to realize that he cannot, or will not, change in the way that you would like him too. Any change will be transient and he will eventually lapse back into his previous behavior.

Knowing that, you have a choice (or is it a dilemma?) that many have been faced with before; stick with him and accommodate him forever, or break up with him and be free to find someone more suitable.

Many people decide on the former, simply because it's usually easier, or because they feel that they already have so much invested and that they simply can't just fold their hand and weather the loss of so much. To this, I say the following: the time you have invested is already lost, because you've realized that it's a bad business decision. If you get out now, your losses are capped at the current amount. If you choose to continue, your losses will continue to increase.

For yourself, at the risk of being arrogant and boorish, I believe that the benefits (going out to expensive dinners, having someone to love, having somebody do/buy nice stuff for you) are rather significant and may be a major reason you're having difficulty making a decision. It's up to you to decide if there is a sufficiently high benefit-cost ratio when everything is taken into account. Are you willing to put up with him, if the price is right? And is the price right?

If you break up with him, there are no guarantees that you'll find someone else who will have as much money to pamper you with, or even that you'll find someone.

At the end of the day, there are simply costs and benefits. The fact that you're reconsidering your initial decision means that the benefits might no longer appear to outweigh the costs of business. In this case, an economically rational producer would shut down production in the long run. But we're humans. We're not rational. So this is, unfortunately, your decision, and I can't help more than this.

In summary, either you stay with him and accept the cost/benefit analysis associated with that, or you call it off and try to find something better. It's tough.

written at 10:25 p.m.