Would getting rid of the autopsy requirement increase medical student interest in pathology?

[peachesorangesapples]

MS4 going into pathology. On my rotations, when I say I'm going into pathology, literally the first thing everyone says, is OMG you're going to do autopsies and you must love dead people or they share their most disgusting case on their pathology rotation many years ago.
It seems most people think pathology = autopsies. Given the fact that autopsies are declining, most practicing pathologists don't do them, turns off a lot of med students away from the specialty, should we get rid of it?
In any case, to counteract declining interest in pathology among med students, pathology needs a public perception change.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sunshinefl]

I’m shocked that medical students wouldn’t have a better understanding of pathology. This sounds like a layman’s reaction to path. I don’t know any classmates who think pathology is only autopsy. And dissection isn’t really the same as an autopsy, which was actually a requirement for us during second year.

TLDR: no it won’t help because no medical student has that little understanding about pathology as a field

 

[Guest8]

I’m shocked that medical students wouldn’t have a better understanding of pathology. This sounds like a layman’s reaction to path. I don’t know any classmates who thing pathology is only autopsy. And dissection isn’t really the same as an autopsy, which was actually a requirement for us during second year.

TLDR: no it won’t help because no medical student has that little understanding about pathology as a field

I think you'd be surprised. Especially today now that there's minimal interaction with pathology as a field in med school. Almost no non-pathology students or residents or even attendings really know what happens in the Path department. They don't know what a cassette is. How tissue is processed. Really anything. That being said, getting rid of the autopsy requirement would have no effect.

 

[HeyDalaron]

I think you'd be surprised. Especially today now that there's minimal interaction with pathology as a field in med school. Almost no non-pathology students or residents or even attendings really know what happens in the Path department. They don't know what a cassette is. How tissue is processed. Really anything. That being said, getting rid of the autopsy requirement would have no effect.

I disagree. I think it would. Although autopsy is a relic of the past, our field's association with it paints us in a morbid light. The possibility of having to do even one, let alone fifty during residency, is stigmatizing enough to repel students who would have otherwise explored pathology.

Funding for pathology departments is often the first to be cut because administration and the public would rather spend money on living patients than dead ones, ignorant to the fact that we are the only doctors that can truly diagnose cancer, and that this inherently subjective skill requires both sound judgment and a certain innate visual ability.

If pathology eliminated medical autopsy from its repertoire, and forensics became its own residency program, I would not be surprised if there was a small uptick in student interest in pathology. The more pressing issue is the job market and low standards of recruitment, however.

 

[sunshinefl]

Ohhhh I see now what OP is saying. Not that medical students think that all pathology is, is autopsy, but that even having that as a part of the pathology residency requirement turns people off.

Hmm....

 

[Unty]

No nothing will help unless you slash residency positions fueling the currently oversupplied job market. If you do that, pathologists won’t be a dime a dozen. Salaries will go up.

People know about the weak job market and pathology has historically been considered the non competitive field to get into for foreign grads. Residency programs look for warm bodies who will gross specimens for them and do as their told.

 

[y2k_free_radical]

No nothing will help unless you slash residency positions fueling the currently oversupplied job market. If you do that, pathologists won’t be a dime a dozen. Salaries will go up.

People know about the weak job market and pathology has historically been considered the non competitive field to get into for foreign grads. Residency programs look for warm bodies who will gross specimens for them and do as their told.

And obtain $100,000-150,000 per trainee

 

[Torsed]

Autopsy is just like learning to tie your shoes as a kid. Then as you progress through pathology one learns to handle massive surgical loads, be responsible for a laboratory, manage a group, manage your colleagues, interact with insurance, billers, attorneys, communities, etc. etc, etc.

To not enter a field because of a 3 month rotation or so that you rarely, if ever, use on the outside of a training program is markedly narrow. I've had a few residents that quit because of autopsy, but the universal theme on "those that don't survive the training program" is that they always wanted to be something else such as primary care or a non-MD. Literally I think a trainee only needs 50 to sit the anatomic pathology boards, its not a big deal.

Choose your life path wisely, there are much harder, stressful things than autopsies down the twisted road of pathology.

 

[futuredoc331]

Most med students really don't have a clue about the full scope of pathology. Most think it's autopsies and histology and they probably don't consider the proportion of time spent on each. I do think that getting rid of the autopsy requirement will keep a few students from deciding against pathology. Having to do them does carry some weight in my decision making process, but the weight for me is relatively low.

 

[deleted314957]

Most med students really don't have a clue about the full scope of pathology. Most think it's autopsies and histology and they probably don't consider the proportion of time spent on each. I do think that getting rid of the autopsy requirement will keep a few students from deciding against pathology. Having to do them does carry some weight in my decision making process, but the weight for me is relatively low.

Given the current state of affairs, anything that would swing the pendulum in the direction of pathologist scarcity seems to benefit those folks with skin in the game.