- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 0
are there any special jobs, areas, or a niche you can enter if you have both degrees.
having both a M.D. and PharmD
- Thread starter tryinghard
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Messages
- 8,386
- Reaction score
- 1,096
Not really. MD's do one kind of job, and pharmacists do something else entirely. At best, your knowledge and training in one area will help you be better at the other job.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2000
- Messages
- 5,910
- Reaction score
- 41
Possible advantage if you plan on working as a physician in infectious disease, but not necessarily.
If you did a pharmacy residency in say nephrology, then went onto become a physician specializing in nephrology...that may be beneficial.
Academic setting.
Administration...more titles the better.
I know someone who went onto their pharmd and was planning on medical school afterwards. Lot of time, effort, money...no real distinct advantage if you ask me.
If you did a pharmacy residency in say nephrology, then went onto become a physician specializing in nephrology...that may be beneficial.
Academic setting.
Administration...more titles the better.
I know someone who went onto their pharmd and was planning on medical school afterwards. Lot of time, effort, money...no real distinct advantage if you ask me.
D
deleted6669
the head of the pharmacology teaching dept at hahnemann(now drexel) is(or least was when I was there) an md/pharmd. he seemed to have a better handle on clinical correlation of presentation to rx needed than the non-md pharmd instructors. he was voted instructor of the year when I was there.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
The only thing that having both an MD and Pharmd will do if you plan on going into clinical practice is cost you money . Let me explain. Of course a pharmd/md will endow a broader knowledge. However, this could be said about basically any other degree (phd for example). Those who graduate with an MD and complete a residency are VERY qualified to practice in their field of choice. The pharmd will offer very little further knowledge that is relevant to the specialty of a physicians choosing.
As for the money comment, think about it in these terms: Finishing pharmacy school is usually a 6 year endeavor (2 years longer than a regular undergrad degree). Those two years cost how much money for school and living? 30k, 40k, 50k? Now, staying in pharmacy school for those 2 extra years means that one is losing 2 years of his/her medical practice time. In addition to the cost of living/tuition in pharmacy school, a physician would be losing out of 2 years where he/she is making 200-500k! This is a LARGE sum of money, and the cost/benefit ratio is strongly against the md/pharmd.
Will one gain anyhting from both degrees? Sure, a little. Will this knowledge make him a more competent practitioner? Not really. Will it make him more money? Very likely not. Will it cost him a huge amount (>400k) in lost salary and living expenses? A very emphatic YES!
The bottom line, go to pharmacy because you like it, because it pays well, or planning to quit to go to medschool. Don't plan to go and finish and then go to medschool because you feel it will somehow be beneficial to you later in life. The small benefit gained will be insignificant compared to the huge amount of money lost.
Jason
As for the money comment, think about it in these terms: Finishing pharmacy school is usually a 6 year endeavor (2 years longer than a regular undergrad degree). Those two years cost how much money for school and living? 30k, 40k, 50k? Now, staying in pharmacy school for those 2 extra years means that one is losing 2 years of his/her medical practice time. In addition to the cost of living/tuition in pharmacy school, a physician would be losing out of 2 years where he/she is making 200-500k! This is a LARGE sum of money, and the cost/benefit ratio is strongly against the md/pharmd.
Will one gain anyhting from both degrees? Sure, a little. Will this knowledge make him a more competent practitioner? Not really. Will it make him more money? Very likely not. Will it cost him a huge amount (>400k) in lost salary and living expenses? A very emphatic YES!
The bottom line, go to pharmacy because you like it, because it pays well, or planning to quit to go to medschool. Don't plan to go and finish and then go to medschool because you feel it will somehow be beneficial to you later in life. The small benefit gained will be insignificant compared to the huge amount of money lost.
Jason
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
I've never met a MD w/ a PharmD, but I have met some with a Bsc. Pharm. The only thing I would have to say about it is that it is suprising how little regular M.D's know about drugs, particularly keeping up with new drugs.
In hospital pharmacies the pharmacist often has to call the physician and "recomend" (read, tell the M.D to use a different drug) a new treatment. It might not make you a better paid M.D, but it will make you a more competent M.D
Rampart
In hospital pharmacies the pharmacist often has to call the physician and "recomend" (read, tell the M.D to use a different drug) a new treatment. It might not make you a better paid M.D, but it will make you a more competent M.D
Rampart
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sorry you have such a poor experience w/ many physicians. There were many posts in a topic like this a while back (I think it was the pharmd to medschool thing). All I can say is that to say "it is suprising how little regular mds know about drugs, partiocularly....new drugs" does not usually represent reality. In fact, physicians often (almost always) know VASTLY (and I do mean vastly) more about the drugs pertaining to their specialty than do pharmacists.
Jason
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm relating the day to day occurances that occur in a hostpital pharmacy and not experiences that I have had with particular M.D's. Whether or not M.D's know everything about the drugs in thier specialty (which is debatable) this is what I observe, not what I think based on my few experiences with doctors.
Sure I'd like to think that M.D's know everthing there is to know about everything that ever was, but this is simply not true. It seems that doctors who are in thier 40's right now are especially bad for this, and seem to perscribe a much greater volume of medication compared to recent grads (kind of a "you came to see the doctor so here are some meds" mentality I guess) .
In any case, I still belive an extra 4 years of learning specifically about drugs and thier properties will provide better preparation for perscribing drugs than 4 years of Biological Sciences etc. It's the difference between 8 years and 9 years of basic training to have 4 extra years of focussed knowledge pertaining to the medical field. It's like engineers who enter Med, sure they are qualified, but will they have as much ingrained knowledge about the human body as someone with a honours degree in physiology? Probably not. All M.D's may pick up the same knowledge in the basic 4, but it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
Rampart
Sure I'd like to think that M.D's know everthing there is to know about everything that ever was, but this is simply not true. It seems that doctors who are in thier 40's right now are especially bad for this, and seem to perscribe a much greater volume of medication compared to recent grads (kind of a "you came to see the doctor so here are some meds" mentality I guess) .
In any case, I still belive an extra 4 years of learning specifically about drugs and thier properties will provide better preparation for perscribing drugs than 4 years of Biological Sciences etc. It's the difference between 8 years and 9 years of basic training to have 4 extra years of focussed knowledge pertaining to the medical field. It's like engineers who enter Med, sure they are qualified, but will they have as much ingrained knowledge about the human body as someone with a honours degree in physiology? Probably not. All M.D's may pick up the same knowledge in the basic 4, but it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
Rampart
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
>Whether or not M.D's know everything about the drugs in thier specialty (which is debatable) this is what I observe, not what I think based on my few experiences with doctors.
Sure I'd like to think that M.D's know everthing there is to know about everything that ever was, but this is simply not true. It seems that doctors who are in thier 40's right now are especially bad for this, and seem to perscribe a much greater volume of medication compared to recent grads (kind of a "you came to see the doctor so here are some meds" mentality I guess) .
No one is suggesting that physicians know everything about everything in medicine; the idea is absurd. I have experience on both sides of the ball so to speak (being previously in pharm school and now in med). I can tell you that unless we are talking about a VERY poor physician, he/she knows vastly more about the drugs in his/her specialty. Cardiologists know vastly more about the drugs they use than pharmacists, rheumatologists know vastly more about the drugs they use than pharmacists, on to the hematologist/oncologists, dermatologists, anesthesiologists, immunologists, etc.
>In any case, I still belive an extra 4 years of learning specifically about drugs and thier properties will provide better preparation for perscribing drugs than 4 years of Biological Sciences etc. It's the difference between 8 years and 9 years of basic training to have 4 extra years of focussed knowledge pertaining to the medical field. It's like engineers who enter Med, sure they are qualified, but will they have as much ingrained knowledge about the human body as someone with a honours degree in physiology? Probably not. All M.D's may pick up the same knowledge in the basic 4, but it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
I spent 4 years in college, going through half of pharmacy school. I certainly have an infinitely better grasp concerning pharmacology than does 99% of my class right now. That being said, when we graduate, finish our training, and begin practicing, there will be very little difference. Sure, I may still know things that my fellow physicians may not, like what about the SARs of cox-2 inhibitors makes then cox-2 selective, or how the morphine nucleus can be manipulated with a predictive increase in potency or added antagonist properties, but will this make me a better clinician?
>it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
Of course. SOmeone who took histology in college will be better prepared for histology in med school than someone who did not. However, who will be the more fluent in histology at the end? Likely, the one who wants to be. Of course entering med school with pharmacy knowledge is great; I'm proof of that. HOwever, I know that by the time I am done, the playing field will have leveled off tremendously. Spending an extra two years in college likely would have cost me WELL over $500000. My original point, which I stand by is that the extra two years in pharmacy school would have offered very little increase in medical competency compared to the massive amount of money it would have cost me.
Don't you think that we could lengthen pharmacy school from 5-6 years to say 7-8 years? It would certainly result in more profecient pharmacists. THe reason we don't is the very small benefit would be outweighed by the tremendous loss in income coupled with the added burden of extra school.
Jason
Sure I'd like to think that M.D's know everthing there is to know about everything that ever was, but this is simply not true. It seems that doctors who are in thier 40's right now are especially bad for this, and seem to perscribe a much greater volume of medication compared to recent grads (kind of a "you came to see the doctor so here are some meds" mentality I guess) .
No one is suggesting that physicians know everything about everything in medicine; the idea is absurd. I have experience on both sides of the ball so to speak (being previously in pharm school and now in med). I can tell you that unless we are talking about a VERY poor physician, he/she knows vastly more about the drugs in his/her specialty. Cardiologists know vastly more about the drugs they use than pharmacists, rheumatologists know vastly more about the drugs they use than pharmacists, on to the hematologist/oncologists, dermatologists, anesthesiologists, immunologists, etc.
>In any case, I still belive an extra 4 years of learning specifically about drugs and thier properties will provide better preparation for perscribing drugs than 4 years of Biological Sciences etc. It's the difference between 8 years and 9 years of basic training to have 4 extra years of focussed knowledge pertaining to the medical field. It's like engineers who enter Med, sure they are qualified, but will they have as much ingrained knowledge about the human body as someone with a honours degree in physiology? Probably not. All M.D's may pick up the same knowledge in the basic 4, but it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
I spent 4 years in college, going through half of pharmacy school. I certainly have an infinitely better grasp concerning pharmacology than does 99% of my class right now. That being said, when we graduate, finish our training, and begin practicing, there will be very little difference. Sure, I may still know things that my fellow physicians may not, like what about the SARs of cox-2 inhibitors makes then cox-2 selective, or how the morphine nucleus can be manipulated with a predictive increase in potency or added antagonist properties, but will this make me a better clinician?
>it is possible for them to carry previous knowledge (contrary to popular belief) into thier degree, or conversly pick up knowlege after.
Of course. SOmeone who took histology in college will be better prepared for histology in med school than someone who did not. However, who will be the more fluent in histology at the end? Likely, the one who wants to be. Of course entering med school with pharmacy knowledge is great; I'm proof of that. HOwever, I know that by the time I am done, the playing field will have leveled off tremendously. Spending an extra two years in college likely would have cost me WELL over $500000. My original point, which I stand by is that the extra two years in pharmacy school would have offered very little increase in medical competency compared to the massive amount of money it would have cost me.
Don't you think that we could lengthen pharmacy school from 5-6 years to say 7-8 years? It would certainly result in more profecient pharmacists. THe reason we don't is the very small benefit would be outweighed by the tremendous loss in income coupled with the added burden of extra school.
Jason
Similar threads
