"Safe" medical fields - is surgery the only one?

[dantt]

Sorry, you are completely wrong on all points.

Well here is what you won't understand as a medical outsider...physicians have skills that aren't easily definable and obvious... As many have said, you can train a monkey to do a lot of what we do, because you don't need to have the background/theoretical knowledge to do it...That is true...However, every so often it is necessary, and more importantly, you need the background theoretical knowledge if you want to make progress in the future and actually improve the approach to an existent or new clinical problem...These other professions cannot even reflect upon the clinical problem the way physicians can...But the problem is, it is hard to quantify or reimburse this value that physicians have...In other businesses like technology, you have very defined groups of people who work on research and development, and you can compensate them directly...In medicine, every physician is to some extent a researcher and developer and innovator, and what exactly constitutes progress takes a very lengthy time period to define and appreciate.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[howelljolly]

Sorry, you are completely wrong on all points.

Oh, I'm so, so sorry. But you are wrong, and he is correct. I know you feel bad. I'll get you a tissue. Maybe when you finish your first year of medical school and start getting within 200 feet of the wards, you'll begin to understand.

But since you have some time, let me break it down for you.

Well here is what you won't understand as a medical outsider...physicians have skills that aren't easily definable and obvious - the CMS and the non-physician med. billing/coding industry has a difficult time defining and reimbursing what is essentially "clinical decision making", such as what's done by an internist or ID specialist. They find it easy to define and reimburse a cardiac cath, or an appendectomy.

you can train a monkey to do a lot of what we do, because you don't need to have the background/theoretical knowledge - you can train a paramedic to place a central line, chest tube, do a peri-mortem cesarian section. Theres a well known case of an appy being done on a Navy submarine by a pharmacy tech. Ive met a few drug addicts that can cannulate their external jugular better than you can.

you need the background theoretical knowledge if you want to make progress in the future and actually improve the approach to an existent or new clinical problem - why, yes, I think so. If you dont know WHY you are doing something, or the theory behind it, how can you improve the principles without losing the underlying goal.

These other professions cannot even reflect upon the clinical problem the way physicians can - read about "paradigm" and "ways of thinking". Understand what the "medical model" is, and how its different from the other clinical professions. For example, CHF and pneumonia are two entirely different pathophys processes to us MD-types. The primary problems are the heart failing vs. a lung infection. To a nurse's paradigm of disease, they are similar due to the primary problem. Both have the primary problem of impaired gas exchange. Both models are correct, if you realize that "primary problem" means different things to each. So given that the other professions see different things as the "clinical problem", they can't really reflect on them in the same manner.

it is hard to quantify or reimburse this value that physicians have - yes. see point #1.

So, again, my deepest sympathy. But you are indeed wrong about SS being wrong on all points. In the future you might want to elaborate on why you think somebody is wrong. Otherwise, not only does your own opinion come into question, but you sound like a supercilious dipstick for assuming that your opinion should be taken on faith, and for your sarcastic apology to the previous poster (in this case SS).