They are trying to define semantics where i (for one) see none. By stating that a physician - by her very TITLE - should be so professionally focused on her patients' tangible physical bodily functions that she should be entirely unconcerned with aspects of their mental wellbeing. As if the 2 fields can be seperated. to which i disagree. A physician is not under obligation to tell you to "stfu and see a councelor", although in today's world they may. I've met doctors (or was that "physicians"?) who have felt it nessesary to also advertise themselves as councelors - perhaps such a double title IS more accurate in the modern definition of a "doctor". But at one time in history a doctor would not have had to assume to do so, as the definition was commonly accepted as being all encompassing. But as you can see from the disagreement occuring in this very thread: not all would be doctors think the advantages of such empathetic distance outweighs the disadvantages. Must humanity and/or empathy really be trained outof our doctors? I'll have you know that this too is a question some physicians ask in the mental health industry itself - as neither is it immune from the "take a number and get lost" modern mantra.
Bianca, I fail to see how your previous response has anything to do with what I said. What does a physician have to do with the treatment of the patient's mental and emotional problems? Apart from sending the patient to the according doctor, that is.
dear victor e: thank you dear raven one: thank you too dear water: yes, i understand that 'physician' implies physical health; what i am trying to introduce is the debate over the evolving definition of health, which directly affects what a doctor is or is not responsible for. historically, doctors treated ailments that were at that time acute. nowadays, ailments are becoming more widespread, from chronic illnesses to mental illnesses of which citizens argue must be addressed by those responsible for health care (including doctors). doctors do argue that they SHOULD only look after diagnosible disease pertaining to one's physiology; however, i believe that practice must evolve with the problem, and the problem has indeed shifted with the advancement of north american society to include such things as mental and emotional well-being. i'm not arguing for a complete remake of the title to include only empathetic practice devoid of sound medical examination. i agree that doctors need knowledge, but not without compassion.
Doctors used to treat patients. Now it seems they treat diseases (and, even more often, treat symptoms, but that a whole other argument). Medicine, as opposed to common modern belief, is NOT science. Medicine is an art form based on science and an all-consuming way of life. That's how it SHOULD be, anyway. That's how it USED TO be. Your doctor used to know your family history because he or she knew your family. Now, you see your corporate-sponsored lackey, who has fifteen minutes to spare you so you can give him a list of symptoms for him to cross reference against his PDR and give you a prescription. Your Primary Care Provider only cares about your total health and welfare as far as it will not get him sued. He will squeeze as many patients as he can in his eight-hour day (if he works those long hours). These "scientists" running through patients on an assembly line is the medical industry's equivalent to McDonalds. This is where doctors who do not get into the field with the express purpose and ideal of "doing good" get you. As you said, water, becoming personally involved and emotionally vested in patients can burn a doctor out. You know what, though, those are the poeple that do not have what it takes to be a doctor. They shoud be scientists and researchers. The ONLY valid reasons for taking up medicine are philanthropic ones.
doctors used to bleed people too. Hell, they used to cut hair by day and doctor at night... the good old days weren't so good. The good new days are far from perfect as well but medicine is a science, at least it is a science if any area of study can be given that name. It's the treatment part (i guess you'd call it applied medicine) that is more of an art.
Bianca- The clinicians I work with must treat a myriad of issues outside of their specialties. They are extremly educated and have knowledge which starts with the pathology of disease, diagnosis, treatment of the primary disease to the treatment of the problems that are often complications of the disease. They treat psych. ssues, clinical issues, and even social issues regarding the families of the patients. They dedicated their lives to treatment of their patients. They are upset when patients expire and happy for small advances against disease. I believe you are correct in thinking that along with the knowledge you must have compassion because I sure as heck would not go to some physician that treated me like a number. Not only are they clinicians but scientists/researchers all in one. In the academic/medical community they go hand in hand. Learn the basic clinical knowledge once you start doing rotations and rounds and interact with the patients I have a feeling you will be able to apply the compassion with the clinical knowledge to make one heck of a physician! You may also want to find an institution which multi-disciplinary approaches are used. Anyway best of luck with your studies, it is not an easy road but is worthwhile if you choose to try to help people.
I am quite obviously speaking about a very specific change in physician's behavior and philosophy, so this is non sequitur at best and an absurd statement to make. Yes, medicine HAS advanced quite a bit from the days of drilling holes in heads to relieve headaches, where do you see me arguing against that? (by the way, modern doctors still bleed people, actually, and medicinal leeches are quite a big business, but I digress.) What I am attempting to elucidate is my view that the seperation of the "science" and the "treatment" should not be seperated in the physician profession. Research is a science. Pharmacology is a science. Toxicology is a science. There are many sciences related to the field of medicine, but a physician who treats the job as a science will not be a very good physician at all, and certainly not one I would want as MY primary care provider. This also comes in reply to water's comment: A physician needs to be a "holistic healer" for lack of a better term. The physician needs to know the patient, because many problems are physiological, and without knowing the psychology of the patient (to some level, at least) the physician will be inept at best to come to a well-informed diagnosis. Bed side manner is a lot more than simply being polite and personable. It is a significant part of the job of practicing medicine, and is being lost rapidly.
I'm sure that you can find extracurriculum organizations within your school that delve into abstract thought and creativity. The field of medicine should be enough in itself to satisfy your desire for "consideration" of others. You could always try some type of extreme sport, like skydiving or bungee jumping to satisfy excitement. Martial arts are great at enhancing motivation and concentration abilities.
Spread your wings and fly! The group that I was jumping with all agreed that it was even better than sex.
The science and treatement really do have to be seperated to a degree, not because the seperation is a good thing but simply because no one is smart enough to be both "all encompassing researcher" and "practioner" at the same time. Today, it'd likely take an entire human lifetime just to learn everything known about cancer alone, forget the other million illnesses and diseases. General physicians (your family doctor) deal with the "small" issues but if you get something serious, they have to pass you onto other experts. In the olde days he/she would have treated you wether they knew anything or not. If humans lived to be 300 years old or we divised a way to learn and retain huge amounts of info in a short period of time I'd agree that the science and treatment should be done by the same person. Unfortunately, the science of "medicine" (and every other science for that matter) is just too massive for any one person. I recommend skydiving, bungee jumping wasn't as impressive as I'd expected. If you do skydive, make sure your first try is tandem because it'll allow the highest jump for a n00b. Alone, your first jump is like 1500 feet, tandem you get a 10,000 (at least) foot jump.
What makes you think you're not just as dumb as the rest of them? If pseudo-intellectual discussion is what you're looking for, there's lots to be found. If real intellectual discussion is what you are looking for, try and offer some insight. Real insight. Good luck, and welcome to Sciforums. A doctor is a healer. A true healer understands the human body, and what the human body needs for peak physical health. Notice the word "needs". The only foods that should go into the human body are the foods that the human body "needs". The healer understands exactly what the human body needs in order to function at full physical health/vitality. Instead, doctors do not tend to function properly as true healers. True healers are not quick fixers. A true healer ensures that the patients understands what "needs" to be done for full health. This includes emotion, eating habits, and physical activity. The quick fixer tends to makes sure all the face value stuff is up to par. As long as the blood work is fine, and the patient is properly medicated for whatever ailment, that is all that counts to the quick fixer. Quick fixers ususally do not understand what it really means to be truly healthy. They only understand what it means to be functioning.
Bianca, take everything you see/read/hear with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY if it's in a forum. My view of the world is, "everyone is stupid, including myself". Then again, what do I know?
Dear Bianca: What seperates you from other postings on sciforums is that you seem to be examining and thinking about the comments posted in stride - even when some might seem ridiculous ot totally out-of-line to you. That's very admirable! You originally state that "I need to sincerely ponder something abstract, evident of actual thought and consideration." Once you said that, "Do you know of any think-tank needing a freelance thinker?" I'm afraid that I don't really know what you mean by this? Are you a writer too. I definitely do not see the need to seek out any medical physician attention for what you are concerned about, and think that these suggestions were a bit off base and irrational. I, among other things, made the suggestion of skydivng as away to add more excitement and diversity to your continuing medical studies that you feel are a bit boring to you. Skydiving is probably safer than crossing the street. First you have to go through at least a four-to-five hour preperatory class to learn the basics. Your first jump is in tandem with your instructor at abou 1,500 feet. You pull the chord on your parachute, if by some rare chance that would fail to open the an automatic emergency parachute would eject at 1,000 feet, and all along your instructor would be by your side to help. Normally you go through three of these assisted jumps before you graduate to a higher elevation: upon seeing that you are more and more secure. It's a great experience; in fact the group that I jumped with claimed that it was more exciting than sex. But that's just a suggestion. You have lots of outlets of creativity that you can do: go hiking and/or camping ina remote region of a nearby park, explore the wilderness; take a short jaunt to your local art museum and along with appreciating the beauty of the art, try to think about what the artist had in mind to paint such a picture; splurge with a one-day exciting trip to a circus, or your city's annual county fair; adopt a pet (but make sure you know beforehand what you're getting into); take a long drive into the country and appreciate the beauty of nature; stay awake at night, lie down in a lounge chair and contemplate the existence and conformation of the beautiful stars above; let your imagination run wild; look at the clouds during the day and try to interpret them by imaging them as animals or other abstract thoughts; scan the weekend newspaper and see if a movie might be of interest to see; or, best of all, come on over and take my dog for a walk! I guarantee you that she will give you some excitement: she always chalenges me!
so far my only outlet for creativity has been a frolick in the bedroom. i will fling myself from an airplane sometime this summer, even if it means using an emergency exit (kidding, for those who are not familiar with my humour). imagine the thoughts that will run through your mind in a free fall back to earth. tell me, did it offer any epiphanies? is there such thing as a person lacking insight? or is insight masked by insecurity? sometimes i wonder whether i am intuitive of a situation, or if i had heard it from somewhere and had forgotten its origin. memory is maleable, after all.
ps. morons are those with one-tracked minds. i think the term moron refers to a transition state, rather than a being, simply because it does not take much to derail oneself from a particular track; only effort and interest. therefore, by angrily claiming that my life is spent mingling with morons, i will become a moron. i could very well have been a moron while writing my original post! and now i am not by admitting to my ignorance. moron! no longer a moron! what a concept.
NB: I am looking to communicate with persons interested in Applied Sciences. No specific discipline or level of skill, knowledge or "formal applicability" is sought. Q: Is there any part of this forum, in any sub section that is devoted to what I call "real world" or .. in terms of applying science, "know how", native skill or may in any way subscribe to "belt and suspender" "nuts and bolts" "hardball" and-or " """ make stuff go """ thinking. Anyone wish to converse in this manner? Much thanks for kindred or other, JH
