Physicians bring lawsuit against NRMP

[xanthines]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/health/07DOCS.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/health/07DOCS.html</a>

There's a NY Times link for anyone who hasn't heard about it. There's also a statement on the AAMC website declaring their intention to fight.
So what does everyone think?

I agree with the plaintiffs that in any other field, the long hours and little pay for residents would be criminal. It really does seem like abuse sometimes and no one wants to be abused. But on the other hand, I think the match prgrm was installed to put medical graduates into hospitals in a more orderly fashion. I guess the larger, general issue is whether or not the employment of physicians SHOULD be driven by the free market system (this is america, baby!) or if it should be conducted in a more social manner. After all, I think the majority of us are not in it for the money.

Of course you don't HAVE to go through with "the match." My PI and my surrogate PI both got residencies at HMS out of match. So it can be done, I guess.

It seems like evry med school has a match rate fo more than 90%. If this is true, that seems like a wildly high number. I don't think there are many fields that offer the benefit of almost guranteed employment after graduating, are there? And please don't say lawyers!

-X

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xanthines]

I guess another question would be how do you think a victory by the plaintiffs might affect MSTPers? Would they increase the length of residencies to accomodate fewer working hours per week? Would you still subspecialize if it took 9 years instead of 5? 12 years instead of 7?

Things could be very different when we graduate. (If I get in anywhere, course! )

-X

 

[none]

I don't think the number of years would need to be increased dramatically. I don't believe there's a great deal of effective learning going on beyond 40 hours a week.

 

[xanthines]

I agree with that. I think one of the residents or MD's said something to effect that residencies are more a slave labor position than training becuase they go in thinking they will learn how to be doctors but instead they spend a great deal of time fetching reports and labs. I figure residents/interns really do only spend about 40 hrs a week learning anything, if even that.

As for lengthening residencies. Well... I don't know. Just thought I'd see what people think. I feel like even if the plaintiffs won, residents would still have work insane hours enforced by subtle, implicit policies.

-X

•••quote:•••Originally posted by none:
• I don't believe there's a great deal of effective learning going on beyond 40 hours a week.•••••

 

[brandonite]

I don't think residencies could reasonably be lengthened... Already, the length of a surgical residency is a very significant deterrant to a lot of people. Nobody would want to specialize if most residencies were 7 or 8 years long!

And perhaps you're right, that the hours will still be as long as before, but enforced by more subtle policies. But it's worth a shot. I am a bit paranoid about killing a patient because I haven't been able to sleep in 72 hours. People just aren't meant to function like that. And by the time we are in our 30s, as a lot of residents are, we have lives outside medicine - families, etc. I wouldn't want to loose a whole five years of my life with my family because I am working 100 hours a week as a resident. To me, the wages are a completely secondary issue to the working conditions.