should i change my mind about going to medical school?

[throzen]

Hello, i am a junior in college and not sure if i should apply to medical school. I wanted to become a doctor for long time, but i started having doubts about it. I am not afraid that i will not make it and i love helping people, but i am afraid that it will not be worth of all sacrifice i have to make. Let me tell you that money is not the reason that i want to become a doctor. I did some research and realized that becoming a doctor is financially and physically very bad and not worth it. I know you are going to say that it should not be about money, but about lovong it and helping people. Whoever says that i will tell him his wrong because how can you make someone happy when you are in bad sitiuation physically and finacially. Doctors are also human beings, they want to help people and live good at the same time. Ok my question is if becoming a doctor is worth financialy, mentally and physicaly.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

1. Hello, Ok my question is if becoming a doctor is worth financialy, mentally and physicaly.

It varies tremendously, depending on the individual.

 

[Kelevra]

I did some research and realized that becoming a doctor is financially and physically very bad and not worth it. I know you are going to say that it should not be about money, but about loving it and helping people............. how can you make someone happy when you are in bad sitiuation physically and finacially.

Look: you say you don't do it for the money; many others don't, either. Many doctors find it absolutely worth the sacrifice to go tell parents that you've successfully treated the infection, or that the surgery went well. Many doctors also find it rewarding to watch patients come in feeling much better, or to successfully run a trauma. In fact, many find it as a major purpose in their life; it embodies who they are as individuals.

Not everybody is like this, and there's a fuc*ton (not an official SI unit of measurement) of bullsh** you deal with as well. You either decide that the highs are worth it, or they're not, and that's based upon your personal convictions and reasons for even considering medicine as a career. Nobody's going to convince you of anything. Why? We don't know you. We have no idea what makes you tick, or what you define as your purpose in life. No matter what you do, you'll encounter financial, physical, and psychological blocks.

You will always be sacrificing something. Money and sleep/free time often tend to be inversely proportional. If you're working a job that pays a lot, but takes up time, AND the job is a "normal", 9-5 orgy-fest of number crunching and staring at your boss Bill as he discusses crappy quarterly performances while you listen in silence for another 3 hour meeting (or do something else that you find boring or meaningless), that may also not be worth the sacrifice.

 

[sat0ri]

Look: you say you don't do it for the money; many others don't, either. Many doctors find it absolutely worth the sacrifice to go tell parents that you've successfully treated the infection, or that the surgery went well. Many doctors also find it rewarding to watch patients come in feeling much better, or to successfully run a trauma. In fact, many find it as a major purpose in their life; it embodies who they are as individuals.

Not everybody is like this, and there's a fuc*ton (not an official SI unit of measurement) of bullsh** you deal with as well. You either decide that the highs are worth it, or they're not. Nobody's going to convince you of anything. Why? We don't know you. We have no idea what makes you tick, or what you define as your purpose in life. No matter what you do, you'll encounter financial, physical, and psychological blocks. The difference? The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc.

Although, if you've not dealt with both, then you probably register with great highs in the latter fields, since you have no "life-saving" highs to compare it to. There's always a tradeoff. You will always be sacrificing something. Money and sleep/free time often tend to be inversely proportional. If you're working a job that pays a lot, but takes up time, AND the job is a "normal", 9-5 orgy-fest of number crunching and staring at your coc* boss Bill as he discusses crappy quarterly performances while you fantasize about hitting his belly, stealing his car and getting with his wife, but don't have the guts to, so you suck it up and listen in silence for another 3 hour meeting (or do something else that you find boring or meaningless), that's also not worth the sacrifice.

I don't mean to sound rude, but are you a doctor? Because that will really color this advice you're giving...

 

[ranob]

Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. Do not go to medical school.

 

[Goro]

Only you can answer this. Shadow some doctors and do some patient volunteer work, if you haven't done so already.

My clinical colleagues LOVE being doctors.

Ok my question is if becoming a doctor is worth financially, mentally and physically.

 

[ZedsDed]

I don't mean to sound rude, but are you a doctor? Because that will really color this advice you're giving...

He obviously has done his research irregardless. This is an important question for premeds to ask themselves, honestly.

 

[Kelevra]

I don't mean to sound rude, but are you a doctor? Because that will really color this advice you're giving...

I'm not giving any advice. I'm explaining how some people look at sacrifice, and why some may choose to pursue it regardless of the many "hoops" and crap you have to deal with. Things are colored via your own personal interpretation. Everybody's experience differs.

 

[sat0ri]

He obviously has done his research irregardless. This is an important question for premeds to ask themselves, honestly.

I'm not giving any advice. I'm explaining how some people look at sacrifice, and why some may choose to pursue it regardless of the many "hoops" and crap you have to deal with. Things are colored via your own personal interpretation. Everybody's experience differs.

So ZedsDed, I don't know if you read this before s/he changed their message, but s/he originally wrote "The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." [sic.] It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. So when s/he says "highs in medicine are really high," s/he's saying what he imagines it to be, which is really different than a doctor saying it. That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case.

This is the whole point of clinical exposure. Get clinical exposure and find out if being a doctor it's all it's cracked up to be.

 

[ZedsDed]

So ZedsDed, I don't know if you read this before s/he changed their message, but s/he originally wrote "The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." [sic.] It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. So when s/he says "highs in medicine are really high," s/he's saying what he imagines it to be, which is really different than a doctor saying it. That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case.

This is the whole point of clinical exposure. Get clinical exposure and find out if being a doctor it's all it's cracked up to be.

I suppose you have a point

 

[Kelevra]

So ZedsDed, I don't know if you read this before s/he changed their message, but s/he originally wrote "The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." [sic.] It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. So when s/he says "highs in medicine are really high," s/he's saying what he imagines it to be, which is really different than a doctor saying it. That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case.

This is the whole point of clinical exposure. Get clinical exposure and find out if being a doctor it's all it's cracked up to be.

1) I understand that it sounds pre-med to you, but I actually do work in medicine. Clinical medicine. For many years. I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are very high, without sounding naive. I can also say (and have said, in my original post), that not everybody feels his way, and here's a ton of crap.

2) Are you implying that because I'm not a physician, my sentence is incorrect? That physicians do not feel highs? And did I mention anywhere in my post that physicians are always saving lives? I'm curious as to what sounded audacious and pre-med, and under researched.

3) Are you saying that I only mentioned highs, and never the "fuc*ton" of crap you deal with? Are you saying that I never mentioned that not everybody feels this way, and that there are a ton of sacrifices, in my original post? Reread the original quote that you quote. It's there.

4) Are you aware that I was discussing why some people choose medicine? Yes, you can certainly have a different opinion. But are you, yourself a physician? If not, I can also question your authority to refute my view, because you haven't felt them, and therefore, cannot call me audacious. Of course, that would be ridiculous. Instead, I would hope that OP has enough sense to not take my discussion without salt.

 

[GomersGoToGround]

So ZedsDed, I don't know if you read this before s/he changed their message, but s/he originally wrote "The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." [sic.] It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. So when s/he says "highs in medicine are really high," s/he's saying what he imagines it to be, which is really different than a doctor saying it. That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case.

This is the whole point of clinical exposure. Get clinical exposure and find out if being a doctor it's all it's cracked up to be.

Nothing he said is inherently wrong. He mentioned highs, as well as lows, and hell, he (sorry, maybe she?) made it clear that not every physician feels this way.

I'm sorry to say, but you sound like you're simply trying to pick an argument. That's somewhat akin to trying to fight the teacher who says "police officers feel high when they take down big criminals". Many do. It's stupid to say blatantly say, "you're not a cop, you sound pre-law, you watch too many movies". Did the teacher ever say that cops ALWAYS catch the big fish and constantly save the day? No. I'd assume you have enough sense to realize that not being a physician does not make his (or her) statements false.

Otherwise, nobody could ever discuss anything outside of their range. It is well known that while yes, many physicians burn out and become bitter, it's very off to say that my other surgeon pals don't feel like Jesus himself when they stop a major bleed or see their patients wake up after emergency surgery and talk to them. That's why many still do it (aside from being to old to change, I suppose).

He was merely saying that many physicians feel outstanding, and although they may not feel "high" too often, the times they do feel it, justifies them putting up with a lot of ****. Personal experience. There you have it.

 

[sat0ri]

1) I understand that it sounds pre-med to you, but I actually do work in medicine. Clinical medicine. For many years. I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are very high, without sounding naive. I can also say (and have said, in my original post), that not everybody feels his way, and here's a ton of crap.

2) Are you implying that because I'm not a physician, my sentence is incorrect? That physicians do not feel highs? And did I mention anywhere in my post that physicians are always saving lives? I'm curious as to what sounded audacious and pre-med, and under researched.

3) Are you saying that I only mentioned highs, and never the "fuc*ton" of crap you deal with? Are you saying that I never mentioned that not everybody feels this way, and that there are a ton of sacrifices, in my original post? Reread the original quote that you quote. It's there.

4) Are you aware that I was discussing why some people choose medicine? Yes, you can certainly have a different opinion. But are you, yourself a physician? If not, I can also question your authority to refute my view, because you haven't felt them, and therefore, cannot call me audacious. Of course, that would be ridiculous. Instead, I would hope that OP has enough sense to not take my discussion without salt.

It comes down to this: you're telling someone what it's like to be Tiger Woods. The highs are high, the fame is great, sure there's bad stuff. But if you're not a professional golfer, that really changes the tone from authoritative to sophomoric. It's not that you can't have your opinion--the whole point of clinical exposure is to develop one--but when you tell me how great (it must) feel to sink a putt while golfing at the masters, it matters whether the person telling you is a caddy boy, a spectator, or a professional golfer. That's all. I don't think we need to dwell on this.

"I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are very high". You literally can't say what it's like to experience something until you experienced that something. Right now you've experienced what it's like to be around it, but not actually be in it (though I don't know your experiences, you're being suspiciously quite about what you actually do).

EDIT: @GomersGoToGround This answers your post too. I simply asked if he was a doctor, because someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves comes off a bit pre-med to me (which amounts to a bunch of caddy boys talking about what it's like to golf at the masters--you experiences aren't valid, but you shouldn't misrepresent their worth).

So just to clarify for you two, I'm talking about the ethos of the argument, not the logos, as you both bringing up points about the logos which I never took issue with.

EDIT2: Again, to stay on topic, I think the takeaway point in all of this is go get some clinical exposure. Talk to people who are actually doctors to get a gauge. You'll never truly know until you're a doctor, but hearing from pre-meds with varying amounts of clinical exposure what it's like only has so much value.

 

[GomersGoToGround]

It comes down to this: you're telling someone what it's like to be Tiger Woods. The highs are high, the fame is great, sure there's bad stuff. But if you're not a professional golfer, that really changes the tone from authoritative to sophomoric. It's not that you can't have your opinion--the whole point of clinical exposure is to develope one--but when you tell me how great (it must) feel to sink a putt while golfing at the masters, it matters whether the person telling you is a caddy boy and spectator or a professional golfer. That's all. I don't think we need to dwell on this.

EDIT: @GomersGoToGround This answers your post too. I simply asked if he was a doctor, because someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves comes off a bit pre-med to me

I understand where you are coming from. I also understand what he/she was trying to say, however.

you called him out for not being a doctor, along with underresearched, pre-med, and assuming of his experiences. Because he said that doctors feel highs, but not all the time, and not everybody feels it?

He never mentioned what it feels like, only that they are "highs". Fine, replace it with feelings a great joy, or ecstasy. It's still not wrong. He could have personally seen it, or have family members in medicine. Or close friends that he shadows. You don't have to be a drug addict or have experience with them to say that many people are numbed by them, or feel invincible from them. Just as we know how drugs can act on the body/mind, we understand that, psychologically, many physicians find their worth/definition of themselves in their careers, because many humans do, and therefore, having a big success in something that means the world to you, probably is psychologically empowering, even if it's not TV. It seems that everybody is arguing something else.

You quoted him as giving advice, and from what I can tell, he wasn't. The OP was asking whether they should change their minds about school, because they apparently researched medicine and found it to not be worth it mentally, physically, etc.

Thus, @Kelevra (is that from a movie, btw?) was using the "highs" as support for the idea that for some people, they feel that way for very personal reasons, and the anecdotes and comparisons were probably used to get the OP thinking about what other careers might actually be worth it physically, mentally, etc. That while it's grueling and demanding, perhaps the OP should think about what they consider "meaningful", or their purpose.

 

[sat0ri]

I understand where you are coming from. I also understand what he/she was trying to say, however.

you called him out for not being a doctor, along with underresearched, pre-med, and assuming of his experiences. Because he said that doctors feel highs, but not all the time, and not everybody feels it?

He never mentioned what it feels like, only that they are "highs". Fine, replace it with feelings a great joy, or ecstasy. It's still not wrong. It seems that everybody is arguing something else.

You quoted him as giving advice, and from what I can tell, he wasn't. The OP was asking whether they should change their minds about school, because they apparently researched medicine and found it to not be worth it mentally, physically, etc.

Thus, @Kelevra (is that from a movie, btw?) was using the "highs" as support for the idea that for some people, they feel that way for very personal reasons, and the anecdotes and comparisons were probably used to get the OP thinking about what other careers might actually be worth it physically, mentally, etc. That while it's grueling and demanding, perhaps the OP should think about what they consider "meaningful", or their purpose.

Sure I "called him out" (read I asked him if was doctor), but this is not problematic. By analogy, it's important to accurately represent who you are in a medical field, which is why RN's can't go around giving advice as if they were a doctor. What I asked of him is entirely unproblematic.

YOU: 'He never mentioned what it feels like' HIM:"I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are very high, without sounding naive."

I really don't want to get into metaarugment and semantics, as that's too much of detour. For instances, was he giving advice? He was providing information for another to use in a decision. Does that constitute advice? Seems a bit moot and boring line of questioning. All i was saying is where you get the information from is important (ethos vs. logos, see my argument, I edditted it while you where replying). For instance, a white girl talking about racism. Sure she might have to some things to say worth hearing, but if you really want to talk about racism, the discussion will always be incomplete until you talk to someone who actually experienced racism (EDIT: whoops i didn't mean to make an assertion on whether white people can experience racism or not, but my point is there).

All I am saying is someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves comes off a bit pre-med to me--what is wrong with that? It's like a caddy boy telling you what it's like to golf at the masters. Not worthless, but clinical exposure is the answer. Talking with actual doctors would be more valuable. Maybe s/he's seen the end product of medicine, but he doesn't know what it's like to go through med school and residency and the everday-ness of medicine, and that will qualify what it's like to experience those highs or joys or whatever you want to call the experiences.

I used the descriptor under-researched because someone said he seemed well researched. I said that not because of his the specific content, but because he's using very platitudinal language, like "Things are colored via your own personal interpretation. Everybody's experience differs."

 

[Lucca]

In my opinion nothing is ever worth it physically, financially, or mentally, but only spiritually.

Get experience, in medicine and otherwise, then sort it out on your own.

 

[GomersGoToGround]

Sure I "called him out" (read I asked him if was doctor), but this is not problematic. By analogy, it's important to accurately represent who you are in a medical field, which is why RN's can't go around giving advice as if they were a doctor. What I asked of him is entirely unproblematic.

YOU: 'He never mentioned what it feels like' HIM:"I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are very high, without sounding naive."

I really don't want to get into metaarugment and semantics, as that's too much of detour. For instances, was he giving advice? He was providing information for another to use in a decision. Does that constitute advice? Seems a bit moot and boring line of questioning. All i was saying is where you get the information from is important (ethos vs. logos, see my argument, I edditted it while you where replying). For instance, a white girl talking about racism. Sure she might have to some things to say worth hearing, but if you really want to talk about racism, the discussion will always be incomplete until you talk to someone who actually experienced racism (EDIT: whoops i didn't mean to make an assertion on whether white people can experience racism or not, but my point is there).

All I am saying is someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves comes off a bit pre-med to me--what is wrong with that? It's like a caddy boy telling you what it's like to golf at the masters. Not worthless, but clinical exposure is the answer. Talking with actual doctors would be more valuable. Maybe s/he's seen the end product of medicine, but he doesn't know what it's like to go through med school and residency and the everday-ness of medicine, and that will qualify what it's like to experience those highs or joys or whatever you want to call the experiences.

He could have personally seen it, or have family members in medicine. Or close friends that he shadows. You don't have to be a drug addict or have experience with them to say that you reasonably know that many people are numbed by them, or feel invincible from them. Just as we know how drugs can act on the body/mind, we understand and reasonably say, without ourselves feeling that way, that psychologically, many physicians find their worth/definition of themselves in their careers, because many humans do, and therefore, having a big success in something that means the world to you, probably is psychologically empowering, even if it's not TV. We understand meaning, and we talk to each other. My first thought when reading it was not that he/she must a doctor, but rather that I remembered sharing my own experiences, as well as those of my mentors before me. I didn't have to feel it.

Thus, it IS reasonable for him to say that, if it's the above. He never said that he PERSONALLY knows. He is aware that there are highs in medicine, and it's also reasonable to assume that, due to subjectivity, they can be very high, depending on the person. Yes, he should have been more clear. That's why you asked if he's a doctor. But I'm not sure why it mattered, other than the fact that it irked you that it seems pre-med. It IS all semantics.

He also never claimed to be a doctor, so I'm not sure about the RN analogy. He never gave advice. You are interpreting it as advice, because he started off stating there are highs.

I would have done the same. The OP is looking for reasons that would point towards going back into medicine. Thus, talking about the fact that doctors experience highs would be in the responses, as would the lows, and more importantly, and conclusion regarding seriously thinking about what is considered a meaningful career. You got caught up on trying to find technicalities.

 

[Kelevra]

In my opinion nothing is ever worth it physically, financially, or mentally, but only spiritually.

Get experience, in medicine and otherwise, then sort it out on your own.

@sat0ri, this is somewhat what I meant. I mentioned the highs because people have very strong personal convictions that define what they consider meaningful.

Highs are transposable across multiple topics. We just feel them for different things. In my OP, I specifically said "Many doctors find it absolutely worthwhile.....many doctors also find it rewarding.....nobody's going to convince you of anything.. Why? Because we're not you.......we have no idea what makes you tick, or what you define as your purpose in life."

I stated that many physicians find it worthwhile, but also that it HIS meaning, and HIS purpose in life. I'm not sure what's irresponsible about that. I don't have to be a physician to understand that they are humans, and therefore, they can feel on top of the world if they've saved or significantly improved a life. Of course, that's impacted by my own values, and varies from person to person. But I assumed that was obvious. Exposure to medicine is vital, but so is knowing what matters to you.

I'll be more clear next time.


@GomersGoToGround, Yep, from Lucky Number Slevin!

 

[Donald Juan]

OP, I think you need to shadow more and decide if the day-in day-out life of being a physician is what you want. If you are just interested in working with patients or helping people there are many good, fulfilling jobs out there in the healthcare field and otherwise that you could consider. This is a decision that you can only answer with a little experience. It's not going to come to you with just deep thought.

To try and answer your question: I have no idea what is bad physically about being a doctor (moreso than any other job....and it's a lot less physically hard on you than many others I can think of). Financially is a little more complicated. Worst case scenario means you go to one of the most expensive med schools you can find, have to take out all loans, have massive debt, and you decide (due to specialty, place you want to live, type of practice, etc.) to become one of the lower paid doctors, which means you will spend about 10-20 years still taking home a decent bit more than your average teacher or police officer after making your loan payments and putting some into retirement. When you're debt free you'll have a nice salary likely above what 95% of Americans make. Best case scenario, you get scholarships or have family that can pay for med school, you become a surgical sub-specialist and you're business savvy in your private practice and the sky is the limit on how much you earn.

 

[sat0ri]

He could have personally seen it, or have family members in medicine. Or close friends that he shadows. You don't have to be a drug addict or have experience with them to say that you reasonably know that many people are numbed by them, or feel invincible from them. Just as we know how drugs can act on the body/mind, we understand and reasonably say, without ourselves feeling that way, that psychologically, many physicians find their worth/definition of themselves in their careers, because many humans do, and therefore, having a big success in something that means the world to you, probably is psychologically empowering, even if it's not TV. We understand meaning, and we talk to each other. My first thought when reading it was not that he/she must a doctor, but rather that I remembered sharing my own experiences, as well as those of my mentors before me. I didn't have to feel it.

Thus, it IS reasonable for him to say that, if it's the above. He never said that he PERSONALLY knows. He is aware that there are highs in medicine, and it's also reasonable to assume that, due to subjectivity, they can be very high, depending on the person. Yes, he should have been more clear. That's why you asked if he's a doctor. But I'm not sure why it mattered, other than the fact that it irked you that it seems pre-med. It IS all semantics.

He also never claimed to be a doctor, so I'm not sure about the RN analogy. He never gave advice. You are interpreting it as advice, because he started off stating there are highs.

I would have done the same. The OP is looking for reasons that would point towards going back into medicine. Thus, talking about the fact that doctors experience highs would be in the responses, as would the lows, and more importantly, and conclusion regarding seriously thinking about what is considered a meaningful career. You got caught up on trying to find technicalities.

Sure so he's a caddy boy, in my analogy. And whether he is tiger woods or a caddy boy will color what he says about playing in the masters. Which was my original comment. Any other confusion? I'm a bit incredulous how much contention there is about a simple assertion like that

RN vs doctor analogy was only to show it is uncotraversial that ethos is important (at least, there is a medicolegal precedent), nothing else

 

[Berkboy]

Sure so he's a caddy boy, in my analogy. And whether he is tiger woods or a caddy boy will color what he says about playing in the masters. Which was my original comment. Any other confusion? I'm a bit incredulous how much contention there is about a simple assertion like that

RN vs doctor analogy was only to show it is uncotraversial that ethos is important (at least, there is a medicolegal precedent), nothing else

There isn't confusion...It's just sad that the obvious needed to be outright stated, and the original message looked past/discarded because the guy isn't a doctor. If the OP made a decision based solely upon this guy's post, then the OP's going to have some problems.

And you quoted him as saying "I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are high"...without providing the context in which he said it...that would certainly "color" your point, wouldn't it? Because you followed it up with saying he can't say that unless he has clinical experience, n then you made it seem like he didn't...but right before that quote, he outright stated that he worked in clinical medicine..."for many years". It's likely he's actually taken care of patients and made medical decisions, and thus, he can reasonably say that the highs can be highs. It's personal...of course.....n he mentioned it.


And, the RN analogy, i agree with in principle, but its not applicable here...nothing was violated...dude gave an opinion about careers and personal meanings on an online forum; he didnt put on a steth and prescribe oxy to people at the local free clinic...jesus.

 

[Berkboy]

And to the OP...yeh I understand what you mean by "how can you help someone when ur not okay financially & physically", but to be honest man, if your find it seriously meaningful to help people, then yeah, you can deal with being in debt, unless money's your # 1. And besides, like somebody said earlier...the worst is that you get to the most expensive med school, get a low-paying specialty, and deal with loans..but you'd be in medicine, not strip-mall retail man. You'll still be okay. You just have to be smart with money managing.

But if you worry more about money and comfort, I'd probably venture a guess that you don't want medicine enough, bud. Because it definitely is not a cakewalk. Ever heard of residency?

 

[sat0ri]

There isn't confusion...It's just sad that the obvious needed to be outright stated, and the original message looked past/discarded because the guy isn't a doctor. If the OP made a decision based solely upon this guy's post, then the OP's going to have some problems.

And you quoted him as saying "I can reasonably say that the highs in medicine are high"...without providing the context in which he said it...that would certainly "color" your point, wouldn't it? Because you followed it up with saying he can't say that unless he has clinical experience, n then you made it seem like he didn't...but right before that quote, he outright stated that he worked in clinical medicine..."for many years". It's likely he's actually taken care of patients and made medical decisions, and thus, he can reasonably say that the highs can be highs. It's personal...of course.....n he mentioned it.


And, the RN analogy, i agree with in principle, but its not applicable here...nothing was violated...dude gave an opinion about careers and personal meanings on an online forum; he didnt put on a steth and prescribe oxy to people at the local free clinic...jesus.

I'm just going to quoute myself directly because you somehow missed it "RN vs doctor analogy was only to show it is uncotraversial that ethos is important (at least, there is a medicolegal precedent), nothing else" So yes, jesus indeed..... You somehow missed it when it was verbatim said

I never said it should be looked past--why are you so confused? Not once. And I repeated myself many times. I said it will color the tone. Did you get it this time? Never said it should be looked past. So one more time for you "in my analogy. And whether he is tiger woods or a caddy boy will color what he says about playing in the masters." A caddy boy for tiger woods views aren't worthless--like I said multiple times--but he still doesn't know what its like to win the masters. That is it--what are you confused about??

Unless his medical experience--which s/he is very elusive about the specifics--was making clinical decisions, which he likely didn't unless he was a doctor, PA, or NP, then he probably doesn't know. He's talking about experiences that he hasn't experienced himself. And if he has made medical decisions, then great--thats my point! It changes the gravitas of his comments. Not invalidates, just changes the weight. Not rocket surgery...

Your use of "n" instead of "and" seems a bit childish, just throwign that out there. Just curious, but do you often need things reapeted, 5 or 6 times, before they sink in?

 

[Kelevra]

I'm just going to quoute myself directly because you somehow missed it "RN vs doctor analogy was only to show it is uncotraversial that ethos is important (at least, there is a medicolegal precedent), nothing else" So yes, jesus indeed..... You somehow missed it when it was verbatim said

I never said it should be looked past--why are you so confused? I said it will color the tone. Never said it should be looked past. So one more time for you "in my analogy. And whether he is tiger woods or a caddy boy will color what he says about playing in the masters."

I still don't think it's applicable. I wasn't trying to appeal in any sort of way, and my authority (or lack-thereof), honestly isn't relevant, as I didn't make any false claims or push any agenda. Yes, it can color the scenario if I'm a physician. But this is an online forum. No need to make assumptions about my experiences based on your interpretation of what I wrote.

"It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the highs are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. This is very audacious, but very typical premed. It sounds very platitudinous and under researched to me, especially since he only mentions the good and made for TV dramatic parts."

The fact that you also are not a physician, makes it just as easy for me to knock what you said above. Especially because in fact, I did not mention only the good and dramatic parts made for TV. I made no stretches. I never talked about all of the drama. I mentioned there are highs, that not everybody has them, and that there's a ton of crap in medicine. I mentioned that DOCTORS feel this way. In fact, I think that might have been within my first couple of sentences. I am sorry if I have to be a physician to say those types of things, or at least to fear the sort of appeal that I bring (wrongly?)


And @Berkboy never stated that YOU said it should be looked past; only that the meaning of the message is lost on semantics and ethos arguments.

 

[ZedsDed]

 

[Kelevra]

And you decide to make fun of him for his typing? While also saying rude things about him such as "just curious, but do you often need things repeated five or six times before they sink in?" That's an appeal of its own. He didn't cut you down anywhere. Only what you said. Please be respectful back.


And by the way, paramedic here. I can reasonably say that saving someone's life is a very high feeling.

 

[blueharbor]

Your use of "n" instead of "and" seems a bit childish, just throwign that out there. Just curious, but do you often need things reapeted, 5 or 6 times, before they sink in?

Resorting to insults is more childish than anything anyone else is saying on this thread...

 

[NeuResurgens]

It sounds like you might not be that convinced about this, in which case, the only way you can determine this is to shadow/work/volunteer in medicine. This is really how you figure out if you like it enough to do it. All careers are going to have ups and downs, pros and cons. There isn't a job out there that is perfect in every way, but there are jobs that are worth it.

 

[zero0]

You should ask yourself that question. It's no secret that becoming a doctor is expensive, and, although they make a lot now, that may not always be the case. Realistically, I think you can still go into the field expecting to be able to pay off your loans as an attending and be relatively well-off. It's also no secret that being a doctor is, more often than not, stressful, as is the process of becoming one. However, most people who go into medicine are hard workers anyway.

 

[sat0ri]

Resorting to insults is more childish than anything anyone else is saying on this thread...

Is it an insult if it's literally stating a fact?

 

[sat0ri]

I still don't think it's applicable. I wasn't trying to appeal in any sort of way, and my authority (or lack-thereof), honestly isn't relevant, as I didn't make any false claims or push any agenda. Yes, it can color the scenario if I'm a physician. But this is an online forum. No need to make assumptions about my experiences based on your interpretation of what I wrote.

"It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the highs are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. This is very audacious, but very typical premed. It sounds very platitudinous and under researched to me, especially since he only mentions the good and made for TV dramatic parts."

The fact that you also are not a physician, makes it just as easy for me to knock what you said above. Especially because in fact, I did not mention only the good and dramatic parts made for TV. I made no stretches. I never talked about all of the drama. I mentioned there are highs, that not everybody has them, and that there's a ton of crap in medicine. I mentioned that DOCTORS feel this way. In fact, I think that might have been within my first couple of sentences. I am sorry if I have to be a physician to say those types of things, or at least to fear the sort of appeal that I bring (wrongly?)


And @Berkboy never stated that YOU said it should be looked past; only that the meaning of the message is lost on semantics and ethos arguments.

"Yes, it can color the scenario if I'm a physician. " Great you agree on my point. That wasn't so hard, was it? That's all that discussion needed to be.

And yes, I'm sorry to inform you, but to **talk about what it's like to experience something you have to experience that something**. I brought up the RN vs doct example solely because it shows that this is the consensus reality, that this philosophical sentiment is commonly accepted (@Berkboy). But if you wanted to get epistemological, consider the thought experiment "Mary's Room". Roughly, Mary is a congenitally color blind neuroscientists with all knowledge past and future of neuroscience. With this knowledge, would she ever be able to know what it is like to experience the color red, or do you have to experience something to have knowledge of it? She'll know things like "strawberries are red" but not have the so called qualia of what it is actually like to see "redness". Much like you, you know what a doctor does and they face stress, but will you know what it's truly like to have your head on the line if you screw something up. And yes you see the highs are high, but are they really all that high when you spent 10 years and went into massive debt to cure someone's infection (read diarrhea) with knowledge that nurse could have told you. I'm not saying I know. In fact, I'm saying I know that I don't know. So I would never frame it as "the Highs, ARE, **High**", and that's the difference between me and you.

Bboy left out a critical verb in his sentence so its not clear if, when replying directly to ME that [the original message *** looked pasted bc you're note a doctor], where the verb he left out could have been "was" or "should be", which entirely changes the meaning. What IS clear is that, I raised a valid question, defended is was a valid question in the face of much challenge from many posters--and you acknowledge just now it was valid, and that immediately after I said we shouldn't dwell, ie let's drop it. I ca accepted people disagreeing with me (in terms of the philosophical regards mentioned above), but to be misunderstood and then to be told I am wrong on those misunderstandings is why I continued. But then again I love moot, metaargument (it's just not good for op).

"The fact that you also are not a physician, makes it just as easy for me to knock what you said above" No, not at all, because I'm not talking about experiences that I never experienced first hand. You said the highs in medicine are really high, which you felt the need to subsequently edit out after I commetted that you don't know what those highs are like, that you can just imagine then based on your experiences. It's like saying that Harvard is awesome because people are curing cancer and winning noble prizes and there's hard work ofc, but the highs are really high--and I simply asked, do you even know what the highs are really like at Harvard? Sure I can imagine what it's *like* to study at Harvard, and it's the pedestrian expectation to think the highs are high, and it's the informed by varying degrees of personal experience, but if I said that about Harvard, what would you honestly think of me? If that's how I talked in high school about Harvard what would you think?

 

[Willy38]

 

[Kelevra]

"Yes, it can color the scenario if I'm a physician. " Great you agree on my point. That wasn't so hard, was it? That's all that discussion needed to be.

And yes, I'm sorry to inform you, but to **talk about what it's like to experience something you have to experience that something**. I brought up the RN vs doct example solely because it shows that this is the consensus reality, that this philosophical sentiment is commonly accepted (@Berkboy). But if you wanted to get epistemological, consider the thought experiment "Mary's Room". Roughly, Mary is a congenitally color blind neuroscientists with all knowledge past and future of neuroscience. With this knowledge, would she ever be able to know what it is like to experience the color red, or do you have to experience something to have knowledge of it? She'll know things like "strawberries are red" but not have the so called qualia of what it is actually like to see "redness". Much like you, you know what a doctor does and they face stress, but will you know what it's truly like to have your head on the line if you screw something up. And yes you see the highs are high, but are they really all that high when you spent 10 years and went into massive debt to cure someone's infection (read diarrhea) with knowledge that nurse could have told you. I'm not saying I know. In fact, I'm saying I know that I don't know. So I would never frame it as "the Highs, ARE, **High**", and that's the difference between me and you.

Bboy left out a critical verb in his sentence so its not clear if, when replying directly to ME that [the original message *** looked pasted bc you're note a doctor], where the verb he left out could have been "was" or "should be", which entirely changes the meaning. What IS clear is that, I raised a valid question, defended is was a valid question in the face of much challenge from many posters--and you acknowledge just now it was valid, and that immediately after I said we shouldn't dwell, ie let's drop it. I ca accepted people disagreeing with me (in terms of the philosophical regards mentioned above), but to be misunderstood and then to be told I am wrong on those misunderstandings is why I continued. But then again I love moot, metaargument (it's just not good for op).

"The fact that you also are not a physician, makes it just as easy for me to knock what you said above" No, not at all, because I'm not talking about experiences that I never experienced first hand. You said the highs in medicine are really high, which you felt the need to subsequently edit out after I commetted that you don't know what those highs are like, that you can just imagine then based on your experiences. It's like saying that Harvard is awesome because people are curing cancer and winning noble prizes and there's hard work ofc, but the highs are really high--and I simply asked, do you even know what the highs are really like at Harvard? Sure I can imagine what it's *like* to study at Harvard, and it's the pedestrian expectation to think the highs are high, and it's the informed by varying degrees of personal experience, but if I said that about Harvard, what would you honestly think of me? If that's how I talked in high school about Harvard what would you think?

Actually, to be fair, after I replied and said that I wasn't giving advice (aside from finding meaning), you were offensive regarding what I said while you replied to somebody else, calling it typical pre-med, underresearched, platitudinal, dramatic TV-like, before I even responded to you. You could have used a very simple explanation, as you did in your first post to me, but you didn't. If you know anything about discussion, you would understand that it detracts from the main point, and puts the person on the defensive.

I responded to your original comment to defend what I wrote. You were patronizing, and still are, and using insults to color the other person. That's illogical when it comes to what we were discussing, and comes off as an arrogant student with tantrums, and takes away from your overall point.

And it was your misunderstanding. You should have asked what he meant, as opposed to assumed. In my other post, I *asked* what you were saying. I edited out what I said because it caused such a headache that it completely detracted from the point. You took my sentence with highs and ignored another 2.5 paragraphs.

"No, not at all, because I'm not talking about experiences that I never experienced first hand." Correct, but you doubted what I said, without context of my entire message, and disregard for the fact that I'm not wrong...there are highs in medicine, and often, not because people are physicians, but because they sometimes do things that resonate with their spiritual feelings and meanings that pushed them into medicine. I never said WHAT the high was like. I described their presence, just like "Mary" knows that strawberries are red. If she ever told me they were red, I would never argue her validity because she's blind, because it's common knowledge. If I wasn't sure if they were, yes, I may. But the difference here is that we all know that many doctors feel amazing after doing certain things. Not every doctor. Not all the time. Couldn't tell you about the feeling. But I could tell you that it's there. Just I don't get upset when a non-addict or someone who's never been depressed points out *what* these feelings are, but never claiming to say they can give details.


Additionally, your Mary analogy also falters here, as while Mary does not yet know what red *looks like*, she knows that certain things are red, she knows what *is* red, and is still not incorrect. You don't have to experience the death of your father to say "losing a father feels very low...not everybody feels this way, everybody is different". Which is what I included. If you are so engaged on your big arguments of semantics, meaning, and context or whatnot, I would assume you would've looked at what else I said in context with the above, and then rethink about my sentences.

I also don't have to experience the highs to know that they exist, that people feel them, and to imply that they are the result of people finding personal meaning in the work they do. Because it's individual-dependent, especially due to what you consider important. Which is what I mentioned.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Is it an insult if it's literally stating a fact?

Yes.

Users are reminded to review the TOS; please remain professional and civil in conversations with each other.

 

[Mad Jack]

So ZedsDed, I don't know if you read this before s/he changed their message, but s/he originally wrote "The highs in medicine are really high. It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." [sic.] It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like. So when s/he says "highs in medicine are really high," s/he's saying what he imagines it to be, which is really different than a doctor saying it. That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case.

This is the whole point of clinical exposure. Get clinical exposure and find out if being a doctor it's all it's cracked up to be.

While I may not be a physician, I was a clinician for years prior to medical school and can verify that the highs are indeed high, and the lows are quite low. Getting somebody back that walks out the door and isn't a vegetable is an amazing feeling, but watching a woman die unexpectedly in front of her husband and children is heartbreaking. Most days are mundane, but it's the occasional days where SHTF and you pull through that make all the horrible **** you deal with worthwhile.

 

[sat0ri]

Actually, to be fair, after I replied and said that I wasn't giving advice (aside from finding meaning), you were offensive regarding what I said while you replied to somebody else, calling it typical pre-med, underresearched, platitudinal, dramatic TV-like, before I even responded to you. You could have used a very simple explanation, as you did in your first post to me, but you didn't. If you know anything about discussion, you would understand that it detracts from the main point, and puts the person on the defensive.

I responded to your original comment to defend what I wrote. You were patronizing, and still are, and using insults to color the other person. That's illogical when it comes to what we were discussing, and comes off as an arrogant student with tantrums, and takes away from your overall point.

And it was your misunderstanding. You should have asked what he meant, as opposed to assumed. In my other post, I *asked* what you were saying. I edited out what I said because it caused such a headache that it completely detracted from the point. You took my sentence with highs and ignored another 2.5 paragraphs.

"No, not at all, because I'm not talking about experiences that I never experienced first hand." Correct, but you doubted what I said, without context of my entire message, and disregard for the fact that I'm not wrong...there are highs in medicine, and often, not because people are physicians, but because they sometimes do things that resonate with their spiritual feelings and meanings that pushed them into medicine. I never said WHAT the high was like. I described their presence, just like "Mary" knows that strawberries are red. If she ever told me they were red, I would never argue her validity because she's blind, because it's common knowledge. If I wasn't sure if they were, yes, I may. But the difference here is that we all know that many doctors feel amazing after doing certain things. Not every doctor. Not all the time. Couldn't tell you about the feeling. But I could tell you that it's there. Just I don't get upset when a non-addict or someone who's never been depressed points out *what* these feelings are, but never claiming to say they can give details.


Additionally, your Mary analogy also falters here, as while Mary does not yet know what red *looks like*, she knows that certain things are red, she knows what *is* red, and is still not incorrect. You don't have to experience the death of your father to say "losing a father feels very low...not everybody feels this way, everybody is different". Which is what I included. If you are so engaged on your big arguments of semantics, meaning, and context or whatnot, I would assume you would've looked at what else I said in context with the above, and then rethink about my sentences.

I also don't have to experience the highs to know that they exist, that people feel them, and to imply that they are the result of people finding personal meaning in the work they do. Because it's individual-dependent, especially due to what you consider important. Which is what I mentioned.

1) paragraph 1--see my Harvard analogy, how do you respond to that? The detail highs of this and that but paid lip service to the hard parts.
2) paragraph 2--petty, I'm mean illogical and misunderstanding, no you're mean illogical and misunderstanding, continue ad nauseum
3) paragraph 3--I read your whole paragraph, see point 1 and the Harvard analogy, which I tried to model after your original comment. And I didn't disregard you message, why do you think that? I tried to parallel it exactly in the Harvard analogy.
4) paragraph 4--it does not faulter in that regard, you literally repeated what I said, as if it was new and subverted the idea. Look, this is one of those "does a tree make a sound.." where there's not necessarily a answer. The point is, there are two type of knowing. The factual knowledge that a strawberry is red. And the experiencing of seeing a red strawberry. Could you ever explain what it's like to see red to a colorblind person? Like wise, can you explain what it's like the feeling it is to be a doctor if you've never felt it? It's the colorblind leading the colorblind.

Also, your death analogy. (Is this analogy 6, or 7?). So I've never experienced the death of my father. I can imagine what it would be like, bc I've seen it. But if someone's father died, I went up to him and said "I know, the lows are LOW", I wouldn't get defensive if that person asked me "have you even experienced the death of your father?".

I'll extend an olive branch. I thought some of your points in your original comment were good. Like the curing the infection part in the catalogue of highs. And I've seen that. And I heard that provider say "I hope they slip on their diarrhea on the way out" after curing it. So I'm not sure the highs are that high. You can only say if they are high for you. And so you have to experience it yourself. I've seen a doctor place a cardiac stent thereby saving his life, and say these people are idiots (because he was probably going to continue to smoke and not loose weight). In general, I've just seen this "the highs are HIGH", when really, it's just a job to them. And a lot of people build it up as this noble profession, with these soaring highs--which is definitely consistent with but not exclusive to the pre med sensibility--and with all this already abdunant amount of obfuscation, I thought it was worth clarifying if it was coming from firsthand experience or from your outside observations. I know I'm criticizing you, but it's without malice.

 

[sat0ri]

While I may not be a physician, I was a clinician for years prior to medical school and can verify that the highs are indeed high, and the lows are quite low. Getting somebody back that walks out the door and isn't a vegetable is an amazing feeling, but watching a woman die unexpectedly in front of her husband and children is heartbreaking. Most days are mundane, but it's the occasional days where SHTF and you pull through that make all the horrible **** you deal with worthwhile.

ok op asks "is it worth it"
Someone responds "it's hard to say that saving a life ... is just as good as being an accountant", and I say have you even done either of those things?

Edit: I've seen someone's life being saved, but I don't know what it's like to do it. I'm sorry but I just don't know anything more platidunal than "Saving lives" when you haven't done it

 

[Mad Jack]

ok op asks "is it worth it"
Someone responds "it's hard to say that saving a life ... is just as good as being an accountant", and I say have you even done either of those things?

Edit: I've seen someone's life being saved, but I don't know what it's like to do it. I'm sorry but I just don't know anything more platidunal than "Saving lives" when you haven't done it

I was just offering my thoughts on the matter, nothing more.

 

[Kelevra]

ok op asks "is it worth it"
Someone responds "it's hard to say that saving a life ... is just as good as being an accountant", and I say have you even done either of those things?

Edit: I've seen someone's life being saved, but I don't know what it's like to do it. I'm sorry but I just don't know anything more platidunal than "Saving lives" when you haven't done it

I have; I'm a paramedic. I've mentioned it a couple of posts ago. It's not platitudinal when it's literal on my part.

 

[Kelevra]

Not sure what happened to this post....had to re type it.

 

[sat0ri]

I have; I'm a paramedic. I've mentioned it a couple of posts ago. It's not platitudinal when it's literal on my part.

Oh right on then. That fundamentally changes things though, which was my point about ethos. You saying that versus me will be very different. In the Harvard analogy you'd be someone who's done a summer internship. I deleted a part were I said nurses after years of experience make medical decisions and even catch residents mistakes. First responders also have to make medical decisions, like is this a seizure or a withdrawl, which will change the medicine to give. Nurses occasionally make decisions in ermergency and critical situations. In Mary's room though, this would be like someone who is blue green colorblind as opposed to full colorblind.

Can we let this die now?

 

[Kelevra]

1) paragraph 1--see my Harvard analogy, how do you respond to that? The detail highs of this and that but paid lip service to the hard parts.
2) paragraph 2--petty, I'm mean illogical and misunderstanding, no you're mean illogical and misunderstanding, continue ad nauseum
3) paragraph 3--I read your whole paragraph, see point 1 and the Harvard analogy, which I tried to model after your original comment. And I didn't disregard you message, why do you think that? I tried to parallel it exactly in the Harvard analogy.
4) paragraph 4--it does not faulter in that regard, you literally repeated what I said, as if it was new and subverted the idea. Look, this is one of those "does a tree make a sound.." where there's not necessarily a answer. The point is, there are two type of knowing. The factual knowledge that a strawberry is red. And the experiencing of seeing a red strawberry. Could you ever explain what it's like to see red to a colorblind person? Like wise, can you explain what it's like the feeling it is to be a doctor if you've never felt it? It's the colorblind leading the colorblind.

Also, your death analogy. (Is this analogy 6, or 7?). So I've never experienced the death of my father. I can imagine what it would be like, bc I've seen it. But if someone's father died, I went up to him and said "I know, the lows are LOW", I wouldn't get defensive if that person asked me "have you even experienced the death of your father?".

I'll extend an olive branch. I thought some of your points in your original comment were good. Like the curing the infection part in the catalogue of highs. And I've seen that. And I heard that provider say "I hope they slip on their diarrhea on the way out" after curing it. So I'm not sure the highs are that high. You can only say if they are high for you. And so you have to experience it yourself. I've seen a doctor place a cardiac stent thereby saving his life, and say these people are idiots (because he was probably going to continue to smoke and not loose weight). In general, I've just seen this "the highs are HIGH", when really, it's just a job to them. And a lot of people build it up as this noble profession, with these soaring highs--which is definitely consistent with but not exclusive to the pre med sensibility--and with all this already abdunant amount of obfuscation, I thought it was worth clarifying if it was coming from firsthand experience or from your outside observations. I know I'm criticizing you, but it's without malice.

I have to retype this; I've been doing this whole conversation on phone, and therefore, could not deal with long quotes and responses.

1) "paragraph 1--see my Harvard analogy, how do you respond to that? The detail highs of this and that but paid lip service to the hard parts.

"but if I said that about Harvard, what would you honestly think of me? If that's how I talked in high school about Harvard what would you think?" I would think the student is not inherently wrong, simply because they are not at Harvard. We see things differently; I argue that it's a semantics argument; you can always say, "Yeah, but you don't know". Of course; but part of human discussion is taking heuristics to certain situations, such as, I've seen physicians ecstatic about X, they've told me Y; I've seen them lose it over Z. Just as I can say that it must be amazing to score the winning touchdown in the superbowl. It's not a stretch, and we've seen this exhibited by players over and over, just as we often see exhibited by physicians over and over. Yes, TV is dramatic. But shows such as Boston med and New York med are set in the real world, following real physicians, their highs and lows. If you've ever spent time around both physicians and individuals in certain other fields (ie accounting or IT, as I have, which is why those came to mind), then while you can technically say "You don't know!", most would consider it hogwash to count them on the same level; their apples and oranges in terms of what you do, but dopamine responses and psychological understanding of basic human reactions in regards to certain major life events is not foreign. Even if I wasn't a paramedic, I would still probably be correct in saying that "bringing back ROSC in a CA patient probably feels damn incredible". The difference is that you are arguing over the use of the word "probably", which, of course, states "I haven't felt it, but can assume it does". That's not incorrect, but in normal conversation this happens, and it shouldn't reduce the entire experience.

2) paragraph 2--petty, I'm mean illogical and misunderstanding, no you're mean illogical and misunderstanding, continue ad nauseum

Again, patronizing comments are better left out. I was explaining why we were where we were, and my responses, and typically, dismissing another's reactions or feelings in the form of mockery or patronization doesn't bode well for the conversation.

3) paragraph 3--I read your whole paragraph, see point 1 and the Harvard analogy, which I tried to model after your original comment. And I didn't disregard you message, why do you think that? I tried to parallel it exactly in the Harvard analogy.

Because you focussed on the sentences of "medicine's highs are really high", as opposed to the fact that that, in context, I mentioned that 1) many doctors feel highs AND lows, 2) Not everybody is like this, 3) it depends on the individual, and the career often embodies who they are (values, beliefs, etc.). "It's often hard to say that saving a life, or at least significantly improving its quality, is just as good a feeling or rush as what you might feel as an accountant, IT engineer, cop, etc." I edited this quote out because immediately after writing it, I saw that it could be interpreted as me blatantly saying, "Medicine is automatically better than all of these". However, if you read the last paragraph, where I mention the meetings with the boss, and take it all into context, it becomes clear that I am making an example using a point of reference (likely mine!), and while at the moment, there was skepticism as to the ethos of the opinion, in doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because I believe we all understand the types of things that can happen in medicine. I'm not making a claim to the frequency or extent of them. Only that, comparatively, I personally believe. I wasn't aware I had to include "In my opinion,". In fact, I also stated: "Although, if you've not dealt with both, then you probably register with great highs in the latter fields, since you have no "life-saving" highs to compare it to." Meaning that of course it's subjective, and relative to peoples' experiences. I also put life-saving in quotations in my original post, as quoted here, because in this context, it's a rather ambiguous term used to define what may happen in medicine with the day-to-day activities of some other careers. Again, subjective. Opinion. My valid opinon.

4) paragraph 4--it does not faulter in that regard, you literally repeated what I said, as if it was new and subverted the idea. Look, this is one of those "does a tree make a sound.." where there's not necessarily a answer. The point is, there are two type of knowing. The factual knowledge that a strawberry is red. And the experiencing of seeing a red strawberry. Could you ever explain what it's like to see red to a colorblind person? Like wise, can you explain what it's like the feeling it is to be a doctor if you've never felt it? It's the colorblind leading the colorblind.

"...you literally repeated what I said, as if it was new and subverted the idea" I did not pass it off as a new idea. I type on my phone, and I lose track of quotes and long conversations. I did repeat what you said, but to allow you to hear it as if somebody else was saying it to you, because my whole point was that, regarding your two types of knowledge systems, you can objectively know things, such as what is considered a normal or perhaps common reaction in a situation (bringing back a patient from cardiac arrest, since it's rare, for example), or that a strawberry is red, and it doesn't change the fact that it's red. It changes how they currently feel towards it, or their ability to point it out. But simply because one hasn't yet experienced the feeling of the "highs" in medicine, doesn't invalidate his claim that their are highs, and they can be very high, because we know this, from plentiful anecdotes of current and past physicians. We don't pass the feelings off as our own. But how we feel before we go into medicine, very much influences what we consider "highs". We are not always correct, sure. But there's no harm in relaying common reactions to situations in fields, felt by some individuals.

"Also, your death analogy. (Is this analogy 6, or 7?). So I've never experienced the death of my father. I can imagine what it would be like, bc I've seen it. But if someone's father died, I went up to him and said "I know, the lows are LOW", I wouldn't get defensive if that person asked me "have you even experienced the death of your father?"."

Again, take it easy; you've also used at least 3 or four analogies yourself. You may not become defensive, but it's rather egocentric to assume that we all react in the same manner. "I don't mean to sound rude, but are you even a doctor? Because that will really color this advice your giving" is not very neutral. It's immediately skeptical and assuming. Further, saying: "It seems irresponsible to be advising people on how great the high's are when he has no idea just exactly what it feels like......That's very audacious... but very typical pre-med. It sounds very platitudinal and underresearched to me, especially since s/he only mentions the good and made-for-TV dramatic parts. It sounds like someone speaking about experiences they never actually experienced themselves--which, it so happens, was the exactly case." Is also not a neutral-toned comment.

"I'll extend an olive branch. I thought some of your points in your original comment were good. Like the curing the infection part in the catalogue of highs. And I've seen that. And I heard that provider say "I hope they slip on their diarrhea on the way out" after curing it. So I'm not sure the highs are that high. You can only say if they are high for you. And so you have to experience it yourself."

This is correct, and I said this in my original comment. --> "Many doctors find it absolutely worth the sacrifice to go tell parents that you've successfully treated the infection, or that the surgery went well. Many doctors also find it rewarding to watch patients come in feeling much better, or to successfully run a trauma. In fact, many find it as a major purpose in their life; it embodies who they are as individuals. Not everybody is like this, and there's a fuc*ton (not an official SI unit of measurement) of bullsh** you deal with as well. We don't know you. We have no idea what makes you tick, or what you define as your purpose in life. No matter what you do, you'll encounter financial, physical, and psychological blocks." I will agree that in my OP, I wrote "the highs in medicine are really high", as if it happens to everybody. However, with the context surrounding it, I would easily simply pass it off as an opinion, corroborated through plentiful anecdotes, and thrown by just as many. Next time, I'll be sure to be explicit.

Oh right on then. That fundamentally changes things though, which was my point about ethos. You saying that versus me will be very different.

It would be, but only in context. Nobody would ding you for saying "Saving lives on an ambulance has highs". It's obvious that it would have its highs. Its obvious that it would have its lows. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated. My point was that, in medicine, you get to do many things that, in society, we consider "wow". Physicians get used to them after a while, but because of the convictions that drive them into medicine in the first place, it's likely they do feel these when they encounter them. Likely in different ways and situations, but if it resonates with who they are, then that's golden. That's why I told OP that "noone can convince them." That we have no idea what his/her personal convictions are, or what's meaningful to them. That's what colors it and, when taken as a whole, it is my opinion, that it is not "irresponsible advice".

Can we let this die now?

Yes.

 

[GoPens]

You will always be sacrificing something. Money and sleep/free time often tend to be inversely proportional. If you're working a job that pays a lot, but takes up time, AND the job is a "normal", 9-5 orgy-fest of number crunching and staring at your boss Bill as he discusses crappy quarterly performances while you listen in silence for another 3 hour meeting (or do something else that you find boring or meaningless), that may also not be worth the sacrifice.

Word.

 

[Berkboy]

Lol! Peace at last. So, OP, what's your opinion NOW?

 

[austinblnd]

Lol! Peace at last. So, OP, what's your opinion NOW?

If I had to guess OP's opinion, it would be something like: "sat0ri needs to pick up a new hobby."

Edit: