In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Today the average doctor makes
approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20
times.

Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical
reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of
reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could
reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today
they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons
used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more
surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in
private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and
far between.

In an industry that controls supply side by the number of
available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to
the talent available.

Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My
recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in
your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians
would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as
it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the
percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance
fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from
a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering
class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified
applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of
roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school,
about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply
side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for
those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the
qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would
the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified
applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have
been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are
becoming mitigated more and more each year.

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is
a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at
one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately,
had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and
fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall,
than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are.

BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz. Less
places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or
higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a
determinant of needed ability.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students
during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a
desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be
involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the
prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order
was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are
we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own?
Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting
from the patriotic hip?

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed
over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a
4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as
charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics.
Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms.
Imagine that.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and
applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to
practice family medicine.

Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is
a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at
one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately,
had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and
fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall,
than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are.

Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego. Rational individuals
generally place those with PhDs above MDs in the cosmic brilliance pecking
order.


BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz.

Same here. Numerically medical schools take a higher percentage of their
qualified applicants than do veterinary schools.

Less
places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or
higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a
determinant of needed ability.

The primary reason for more applicants for fewer positions in vet schools is
that many people envision helping animals as nobler than helping humans.
Not sure why, but studies have shown that veterinary medicine is the most
desirable health care profession in the US. It's not for the money, albeit
vets have increased their fees and subsequently their incomes dramatically
over the past twenty years, relative to most other non-medical professions.

Max

In article t,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students
during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a
desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be
involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the
prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order
was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are
we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own?
Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting
from the patriotic hip?

Hmm, I think I was unclear. I have no reason to believe that ours
differ in motive from yours and would be somewhat surprised if they
did. Just that I've never seen such a survey so can't say for sure.

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed
over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a
4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as
charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics.
Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms.
Imagine that.

Which would indicate that changing from a straight GPA (TER here) as a
basis for selection would cost nothing in terms of quality of doctor
and *may* pay off in other ways.

Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth. Less than a vet surgeon tho a vet does
have the advantage of burying mistakes with less legal problems.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and
applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to
practice family medicine.

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives. Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.
Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of endeavor.
It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very often.
Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.

The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.

Max

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives.

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.

For a lot, yes. I know a little about this field because I used to work
in a closely related area. In fact at one stage I was offered a full
scholarship to return to university and get a PhD in bioinformatics.
Decided life was too short to do this in my mid 40s & went back to sea
instead, but that's another story.

Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of endeavor.

Oh agreed. Moreso than money for R&D people.

It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very often.

I don't think I used the word 'altruism' anywhere. In fact I'm damn
certain I didn't. I've seen very senior & powerful researchers do
anything possible to preserve funding and/or get more to pursue their
pet hobbyhorses ragardless of any other factor to actually be under any
such delusion. The current global warming stuff is a lovely case in
point, actually, which I am observing from a close to ringside seat. I
am a data providor to some of this.

Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

Not a problem when you see them ****ed at conferences etc. Then the
truth comes out.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local mechanic.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.

We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

Don't get me started on lawyers.


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.

Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio. I don't as a rule watch movies because I've found they're
mostly shallow and simplistic. However, I read a number of newspapers
and a wide range of scientific literature. I get to do this as part of
my job and also I do it for interest & entertainment. My opinions are
just that, but if they have congruence with the media, it's
coincidental.

As I said, I know a lot of doctors. I've designed & written software
that's running the entire NSW neonatal screening program and has
genetic data on well over a million children online. Perhaps my
familiarity has caused me to see them in a different light. I respect
the better ones' talent, skill and dedication, but I'm not in awe of
them nor do I respect them more highly than people in other demanding
professions.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the
expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're
interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed
would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a
nice side effect.

I think you've got blinders on, Pete. Motivations for doing research
among
the gifted academics are as wide and varied as with any endeavor by
anyone.
Seldom do researchers have the monocentric interest (obsession) that you
describe without other motives.

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Try taking away their big NIH grants or corporate salaries/bonuses and see
how many of them still are obsessed.

Money is a big one these days, especially
in some fields where the payoff can be huge, such as genetic engineering.

For a lot, yes. I know a little about this field because I used to work
in a closely related area. In fact at one stage I was offered a full
scholarship to return to university and get a PhD in bioinformatics.
Decided life was too short to do this in my mid 40s & went back to sea
instead, but that's another story.

Prestige also tops the list--academics as a rule tend to be somewhat
egotistical, and peer recognition/adulation is a powerful motivator. So
is
the desire to be the foremost individual in a particular field of
endeavor.

Oh agreed. Moreso than money for R&D people.

Probably. I've always held an affection for those in academia/research who
eschew the public limelight and don't seem to require the adulation of their
peers. Rare birds, they are.

It would be convenient to believe researchers have nothing but altruism
lighting their way, but that simply isn't the case, at least not very
often.

I don't think I used the word 'altruism' anywhere. In fact I'm damn
certain I didn't. I've seen very senior & powerful researchers do
anything possible to preserve funding and/or get more to pursue their
pet hobbyhorses ragardless of any other factor to actually be under any
such delusion.

You're right. There are typically less-than-attractive underlying motives
for such obsessions, however. That's why I used the term "altruism." I
don't think it exists to any great degree in research these days.

The current global warming stuff is a lovely case in
point, actually, which I am observing from a close to ringside seat. I
am a data providor to some of this.

Most prominent research scientists won't normally discuss their motives,
apart from telling you they have " . . .always been obsessed with . . ."
their topic of choice, but the other motives are there, and they are
powerful.

Not a problem when you see them ****ed at conferences etc. Then the
truth comes out.

Occasionally, yes, but not always. Some top people are consumate liars, or
at least evaders of the truth.

So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose
some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor
practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto
mechanic, to tell the truth.

Ridiculous. Next time you are seriously ill, consult your local
mechanic.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

Yes, he is. But he is also a powerful physiologist, diagnostician, and
therapist. If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement. Or the microbial
pathogen you contracted during the surgery might undo all he did with his
"bone mechanics." If the fuel pump the auto mechanic replaced did not
solve your car's stalling-at-stoplights problem, he'll replace something
else until he gets it right. Either way your car lives to drive another
day. Bad comparison, doctor vs. mechanic.


They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is
doing a PhD in a health related area instead.

It's more than just boredom. It's frustration with the legal climate
surrounding health care, the governmental intervention that imposes more
and
more controls over how a qualified physician can practice medicine, and
the
eroding doctor-patient relationship, thanks to the first two items. A
close
friend, a cardiac surgeon, threw in the towel six years ago and bought a
convenience store (grocery + gas station) in Montana. He had practiced
for
24 years, been junk-sued twice (he won both), and watched his malpractice
premiums rise to the level of 25% of his annual gross income. His
professional group broke up for legal reasons, and he found himself
alone,
having to be on call constantly. Since leaving medicine, he's a very
happy
man. Before he was consistently frustrated and often angry.


We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

LOL. What crap litigation that was. Seriously, however, the problem of
junk suits won't go away here, mostly because the trial lawyers groups in
this country are too powerful, not to mention that so many of our
congressmen, senators, and presidents are attorneys. If ever there was a
special interest group overrepresented in our government it is lawyers.

My cousin is doing primarily OB now. He has religious qualms with abortion,
so he cannot participate in the GYN end of his group practice. But he knows
his time as a physician is probably limited. Any baby born with birth
defects or with delivery complications is a potential lawsuit these days.
He's been sued five times for complaints so far beyond his control as to
stretch the imagination. All five cases were dismissed for lack of evidence
of neglect on his part, but he still had to endure the expense, the mental
turmoil, and the negative publicity such suits have wrought. OB is in a
unique position in that young women know that if they sue the doctor and
win, the damage to the profession won't affect them in the future, provided
they are through with childbearing. So such suits are plentiful. Let the
upcoming generations worry about where to find OB care---it's no longer my
problem.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

(see above) You've already gotten me started.


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.


Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio.

Sorry, but that doesn't prevent you from getting one-sided info. Much of
the written media these days have rather anti-medical biases.

I don't as a rule watch movies because I've found they're
mostly shallow and simplistic. However, I read a number of newspapers
and a wide range of scientific literature. I get to do this as part of
my job and also I do it for interest & entertainment. My opinions are
just that, but if they have congruence with the media, it's
coincidental.

As I said, I know a lot of doctors. I've designed & written software
that's running the entire NSW neonatal screening program and has
genetic data on well over a million children online. Perhaps my
familiarity has caused me to see them in a different light. I respect
the better ones' talent, skill and dedication, but I'm not in awe of
them nor do I respect them more highly than people in other demanding
professions.

Years ago physicians were regarded in near-godlike terms. Today most people
are aware that they, like everyone else, are just humans with the same
fallibility, idiosyncrasies, and problems. I don't believe the current crop
of physicians *wants* you to be in awe of them. To the contrary, most of
them want you to know up front that they are doing their level best and do
care for your welfare, but are not free from error or misjudgment. Times
have changed in the medical world. Ego and arrogance are not absent, but
they do not define the doctor any longer.

Max

In article , Maxprop
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

Yeah, I know that. But the big driver is interest/obsession IME. For
the best ones, at least.

Try taking away their big NIH grants or corporate salaries/bonuses and see
how many of them still are obsessed.

Shrug. Some R&D is so expensive, it either gets funded by Govts
(directly or indirectly) or by big corporations. Nobody else can afford
it. Not a matter of obsession at that point.

Costs my group some $3 mill to stage a single research cruise. Even in
USD that ain't cheap and it doesn't include the salaries of up to 70
scientists & techs, nor ship fuel.

About as useful and sensible as the next time I have a problem with my
interrelated software/hardware control systems, I should consult a
doctor. You'll have to do better than that, Max. I didn't say doctors
weren't skilled. Mostly, they are. The surgeon who put my arm together
did a pretty good job of it considering how badly I managed to smash
it. I'm happy with the end result. So what? A top orthopaedic surgeon
is a real good bone mechanic :-)

Yes, he is. But he is also a powerful physiologist, diagnostician, and
therapist.

Matter of opinion. The surgeon didn't have much to do with me after the
op except a couple checkups. My physiotherapist, OTOH, spent a lot of
time up close & personal. She's not a doctor. He wasn't a therapist in
the sense I'm using.

If he weren't those things, your anaesthetic-induced arythmias
might prove fatal during your total hip replacement.

Different specialty. Doctors are rarely extensively cross trained once
they've become senior specialists IME. We employ such doctors (cross
trained ones) because we send them places where there's no possibility
of backup and the surgical nurses, anesthetists etc are people like -
me. As I said one trip, you better not get badly hurt because I'll be
operating the anaesthetic while the doc does the work :-)

Or the microbial
pathogen you contracted during the surgery might undo all he did with his
"bone mechanics."

Ditto. That's either good aseptic control on the part of the hospital
or maybe downright carelessness I guess. Nevertheless I got my butt
outa hospital and home ASAP. Had a hairline fracture of the pelvic
girdle and wasn't supposed to be walking for 6 weeks, but I was outa
there 3 days after they'd finished pinning my arm back together. 3 ops
over a week, I learnt the benefits of a morphine drip under patient
control :-) Thank God I wasn't in the USA, the DEA probably woulda
locked everyone up for abuse of narcotics.

If the fuel pump the auto mechanic replaced did not
solve your car's stalling-at-stoplights problem, he'll replace something
else until he gets it right. Either way your car lives to drive another
day. Bad comparison, doctor vs. mechanic.

I'll agree that the consequences of failure might be higher with an
auto mechanic, but possibly not with, say, an airline one.


We have been/are losing doctors in the OB/GYN specialties due to plain
stupid lawsuits so I hear you. Occasionally there's a glimmer of hope.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...9-1702,00.html

I had a suggestion for 'wrongful life' cases. We should just offer to
terminate them now, end of problem.

LOL. What crap litigation that was. Seriously, however, the problem of
junk suits won't go away here, mostly because the trial lawyers groups in
this country are too powerful, not to mention that so many of our
congressmen, senators, and presidents are attorneys. If ever there was a
special interest group overrepresented in our government it is lawyers.

My cousin is doing primarily OB now. He has religious qualms with abortion,
so he cannot participate in the GYN end of his group practice. But he knows
his time as a physician is probably limited. Any baby born with birth
defects or with delivery complications is a potential lawsuit these days.

Our High Court has no settled the birth defect one at least insofar as
'wrongful life' claims go.

He's been sued five times for complaints so far beyond his control as to
stretch the imagination. All five cases were dismissed for lack of evidence
of neglect on his part, but he still had to endure the expense, the mental
turmoil, and the negative publicity such suits have wrought. OB is in a
unique position in that young women know that if they sue the doctor and
win, the damage to the profession won't affect them in the future, provided
they are through with childbearing. So such suits are plentiful. Let the
upcoming generations worry about where to find OB care---it's no longer my
problem.

We had one woman who sued because she was advised to have a C-section
rather than a vaginal delivery, because of some factor(s) I forget. End
result was a healthy mother & baby, but she sued because she'd been
deprived of the experience of a natural childbirth. Can't remember if
she won or not, but it's crap like that causes doctors to give it away.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

(see above) You've already gotten me started.

Second group against the wall, come the revolution.....


The media paint a very one-sided, distorted view of medical people, Pete.
If you are forming your impressions from them, you really need to change
your information-gathering methods.


Umm, Max, I'm one of those oddball people who *read*. I don't own a TV
or a radio.

Sorry, but that doesn't prevent you from getting one-sided info. Much of
the written media these days have rather anti-medical biases.

Sure, but it cuts down the crap no end. Big improvement in the S/N
ratio, similar to killfiling Bob here.

Years ago physicians were regarded in near-godlike terms. Today most people
are aware that they, like everyone else, are just humans with the same
fallibility, idiosyncrasies, and problems. I don't believe the current crop
of physicians *wants* you to be in awe of them. To the contrary, most of
them want you to know up front that they are doing their level best and do
care for your welfare, but are not free from error or misjudgment. Times
have changed in the medical world. Ego and arrogance are not absent, but
they do not define the doctor any longer.

I agree. We've drifted far from the starting point by now. I still
don't think it requires top level SAT/TER scores to make a good doctor.
Academic ability (or ability to pass exams) is useful but not
sufficient. If I had to pick a 'talent', it'd be the ability to
synthesise a raft of information and make a correct diagnosis more
often than an incorrect one. I don't underestimate the ability of doing
this, nor do I think that lawyers, who can't do it themselves even with
100% hindsight, aid the process one iota.

The population at large may well no longer be in awe of doctors, but
they sure are in contempt of lawyers. I can't see that changing any
time soon.

PDW

"Maxprop" wrote
Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego.

I always thought Cadillac drivers were the same until I bought one, then I found
that other drivers make you that way. If one is deferred to often enough one
comes to expect it. After observing how folks treated his MD uncle a buddy of
mine began using it to his own advantage. For example, if you leave a message
for a friend he may or may not get it but if you say "Tell him Dr. Daniels
called about his lab results" he almost certainly will. The down side was he
was often asked for free diagnosis. He cured that by claiming to be a
proctologist!

In article , Vito
wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote
Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego.

I always thought Cadillac drivers were the same until I bought one, then I
found
that other drivers make you that way. If one is deferred to often enough one
comes to expect it. After observing how folks treated his MD uncle a buddy of
mine began using it to his own advantage. For example, if you leave a message
for a friend he may or may not get it but if you say "Tell him Dr. Daniels
called about his lab results" he almost certainly will.

Yeah. My wife found that when she got her PhD. All of a sudden she got
straight through doctors' secretaries without explanation when she was
wanting to get hold of them, and the med school students paid far more
attention as well.

Funny. I was an associate professor for a while, which caused my staff
a lotta amusement. Eventually I demoted myself as it was a PITA.

PDW