radiology or internal medicine

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

moi24

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
though this might not be the best place to post this topic, i thought i'd throw this out to get input from people who have had to/are trying to decide between going into Rads - vs - Internal Medicine for residency.

i know they are totally opposite but i'm drawn to them for different reasons. i was a biomedical engineering major so the technology meets body thing draws me to radiology. the whole intellectual problem solving of medicine, plus the option to go into a fellowship (i'm thinking hem/onc right now) intrigues me too.

my fear about going into Radiology is that i'm a total people-person and i might miss the high level of patient interaction.

i'd appreciate any input/advice people can give me!

Members don't see this ad.
 
it takes a certain kind of person to stare at studies all day, i could never do radiology, its an interesting field with a good lifestyle but you have to know when you just could not imagine yourself doing something long term .. and you cant go wrong with im..
 
though this might not be the best place to post this topic, i thought i'd throw this out to get input from people who have had to/are trying to decide between going into Rads - vs - Internal Medicine for residency.

i know they are totally opposite but i'm drawn to them for different reasons. i was a biomedical engineering major so the technology meets body thing draws me to radiology. the whole intellectual problem solving of medicine, plus the option to go into a fellowship (i'm thinking hem/onc right now) intrigues me too.

my fear about going into Radiology is that i'm a total people-person and i might miss the high level of patient interaction.

i'd appreciate any input/advice people can give me!

Moi24, I am in the exact same dilema, except the fact that i am not that much of a ppl person. One thing you need to remember is that you can have a decent amt of patient contact if ur in smth like interventional radiology.

personally i am leaning more and more toward radiology and i hope you do too, lol
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm deciding between the same two specialties. I'm currently on week 5 of my internal medicine rotation, and it is truly the first time during MS3 that I've felt, "Wow. I'm so happy to go to work today!" I'm leaning towards radiology at this point, but IM definitely is tempting me!
 
uclastudent ~ if you are loving IM, what's drawing you to radiology? is it the lifestyle?

for anyone who was considering radiology-vs-internal medicine, what did you ultimately choose and why?
 
I realize your post is totally innocent, but you came to a radiology forum and posted about whether or not you should go into IM or radiology? You didn't really need to post to know what we would say, right?

In all seriousness, people always say they love IM because of the "problem solving" involved. I often wonder if these people have spent an appreciable amount of time doing IM. To me, IM is less about problem solving than it is about finding which nursing home will accept my patient's insurance.

IMO, if you want to see problem solving, spend some more time in the reading room watching 3-4 radiologists and radiology residents trying to figure out what the hell that thing is.
 
uclastudent ~ if you are loving IM, what's drawing you to radiology? is it the lifestyle?

I've rotated through surg, Ob/Gyn, peds, and half of IM --- IM is definitely the best one so far. However, I think I love radiology even more and it plays well to my strengths. My preceptor is a neuroradiologist, and if I were to radiology, I'd probably head in that direction.
 
Here's something to chew on. I've met a lot of Internal Med docs. Some love their field, some regret it. I've met quite a few radiology doctors. I'm not exagerrating here, but I've yet to meet one who didn't like (or love) his field.

Check this thread for some other evidence:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=494377
 
i'm trying to decide between rads and im...i know they are totally opposite but i'm drawn to them for different reasons. i was a biomedical engineering major so the technology meets body thing draws me to radiology. the whole intellectual problem solving of medicine, plus the option to go into a fellowship (i'm thinking hem/onc right now) intrigues me too.

my fear about going into Radiology is that i'm a total people-person and i might miss the high level of patient interaction. people keep telling me to go into IR if i want pt interaction ~ but i don't know if i want to rely upon a fellowship to get that.

also, is anyone applying for both? if so, is it a bad idea to apply to the same hospital in 2 different programs?

i'd appreciate any advice people could give me!
funny... i also have interests in both (seemingly dfferent) areas and am torn between the two. I went to med school because I was interested in IM/Heme-Onc and I liked the heme-onc courses... but I am not so sure I would like the every day practice of IM or heme/onc. I guess I don't have na answer or any advice... I have been struggling with the exact same feelings though!
 
If you are more like Dr House (loves interesting cases and diagnosing) you should be a radiologist. If you are more like Dr Wilson (cares about treatment and whats best for pt) you should do IM/Heme-Onc
 
I am in a similar situation. I enjoy med and love the interaction with pts and the intellectual aspect of it. Before med school I was always thinking heme/onc. Rad Onc is another possibility and those docs also seem to love the field. Well, my plan is to rotate in Rad Onc early as a MS4 (August). If I love it, rad onc it is. I will do a sub-I in med in September if I don't love rad onc. So far I have done surgery/psych and OB-GYN and those are out.
 
Ask a group of 40-something year old IM physicians if they could do it all over again would they choose Radiology instead. At least 30% of them would say yes, and another 30% would by lying to themselves in a self defense mechism to keep their sanity.

Ask a group of 40-something year old Radiologists if they could do it all over again would they choose IM instead...I think you would be hard pressed to find 5% that would consider it. Most would laugh in your face.

Radiology is every bit as intellectual as medicine. I'd even argue that it's more social...your social time comes from talking to other physicians about cases instead of ***** patients. In every other aspect, Radiology destroys medicine: hours, family time, vacation, pay, stress level, call, etc.

My advice to anyone in your situation is to match in Radiology. Do your intern year at a good prelim medicine IM program. If you don't absolutely hate your intern year by March, then go to your program and ask for an IM categorical spot for the next year. They will be happy to give it to you. You waste no time in your medicine career. There will even probably be a fellow medicine intern with you that would die to take your Radiology spot at that point. In all likelihood by March you will realize just what IM is and the misery that it involves, you'll look at the Radiology residents in envy and start counting down the days until July when you can join them and you'll lay in bed and thank God for that guy named "Scooterbanks" who took 10 minutes out of his evening to save you a lifetime of misery!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
To the OP: what year are you currently in? If you haven't done your MS-III rotations yet, my advice is to just keep an open mind and see what interests you as you rotate through the various specialties. It's tough to figure out what you're going to like before that.
 
The whole intellectual problem solving of medicine, plus the option to go into a fellowship (i'm thinking hem/onc right now) intrigues me too.

If this is your primary motivation of going into medicine...STOP! There are very few things that are "intellectual" about being a medicine specialist these days. It's all about imaging and tissue. The "art" of medicine in our generation has been lost to improved technology and increased volume.

For example, lets assume you do a heme/onc fellowship. Patient gets admitted to the hospital by his primary care physician for shortness of breath or abdominal pain, pick one. They are inevitably going to order a CT. The Radiologist reads the CT and determines there is a mass lesion somewhere suspicious for malignancy. At this point, you the Heme/Onc, is consulted by the primary team. Your next step is to order a tissue biopsy to determine what the mass is (which the radiologist recommended to you in his initial report anyway). Guess who does the CT biopsy? The Radiologist! Guess who reads the tissue biopsy? The Pathologist! Where do your intellectual problem solving abilities factor in? Your next step is to order a PET CT to determine what nodes are involved and if there are mets. Guess who reads the PET? The Radiologist! After getting all of the information back from pathology and radiology...which includes type of malignancy and location...you are now ready to treat your patient. Guess how you treat them...by very strict guidelines (aka cookbook medicine) based upon the exact information (tumor type and location) that the pathologist and radiologist provided to you! A monkey could do that. The only thing left for you to do is write a few scripts, make arrangements for chemo, and field that 2am phone call from the ER saying that the family just returned with your patient that you sent home on hospice two weeks prior because "he wasn't looking good". (I just used onc as an example above...heme works the same way. A monkey can also look at a WBC and tell if it's 0 or 35, noting something is wrong, and sent a sample to the pathologist and wait for them to tell them exactly what it is so that the proper cookbook medicine treatment can be initiated).
 
If this is your primary motivation of going into medicine...STOP! There are very few things that are "intellectual" about being a medicine specialist these days. It's all about imaging and tissue. The "art" of medicine in our generation has been lost to improved technology and increased volume.

For example, lets assume you do a heme/onc fellowship. Patient gets admitted to the hospital by his primary care physician for shortness of breath or abdominal pain, pick one. They are inevitably going to order a CT. The Radiologist reads the CT and determines there is a mass lesion somewhere suspicious for malignancy. At this point, you the Heme/Onc, is consulted by the primary team. Your next step is to order a tissue biopsy to determine what the mass is (which the radiologist recommended to you in his initial report anyway). Guess who does the CT biopsy? The Radiologist! Guess who reads the tissue biopsy? The Pathologist! Where do your intellectual problem solving abilities factor in? Your next step is to order a PET CT to determine what nodes are involved and if there are mets. Guess who reads the PET? The Radiologist! After getting all of the information back from pathology and radiology...which includes type of malignancy and location...you are now ready to treat your patient. Guess how you treat them...by very strict guidelines (aka cookbook medicine) based upon the exact information (tumor type and location) that the pathologist and radiologist provided to you! A monkey could do that. The only thing left for you to do is write a few scripts, make arrangements for chemo, and field that 2am phone call from the ER saying that the family just returned with your patient that you sent home on hospice two weeks prior because "he wasn't looking good". (I just used onc as an example above...heme works the same way. A monkey can also look at a WBC and tell if it's 0 or 35, noting something is wrong, and sent a sample to the pathologist and wait for them to tell them exactly what it is so that the proper cookbook medicine treatment can be initiated).

thanks for your non-biased opinion, ScooterBanks. something in your posts makes me think that you never had the people skills, and read a lot about the abilities of monkeys.
 
If this is your primary motivation of going into medicine...STOP! There are very few things that are "intellectual" about being a medicine specialist these days. It's all about imaging and tissue. The "art" of medicine in our generation has been lost to improved technology and increased volume.

This is a joke, right? Most patients have MULTIPLE PROBLEMS/ISSUES, which is where all of the thinking comes into play. Each patient can present differently, as well. This is why doctors will not be replaced by computers any time soon... because it isn't just "cookbook medicine".
 
lankysudanese--I apologize for coming across so harsh above. Of course I'm biased. Every opinion is going to have an individual biases embedded in it. I feel strongly about this issue because I almost made the biggest mistake of my life doing medicine over radiology, and would like to encourage others who are trying to make that choice not to potentially make the same mistake. Given my level of training and relative experience and exposure to the system of medicine, I'd also argue that I'm able to give a less biased opinion than yourself on the topic. I don't think you are far along enough to have shaken general stereotypes of specialties nor do you fully understand what each specialty actually does on a given day...especially in the private practice world...your "people skills" comment is a good indicator of that. You probably also believe that Radiologists sit in the dark all day alone and look at films.

All of medicine, to a great degree, is "cookbook" these days...even Radiology. As I said earlier, technology in terms of imaging as well as easy ability to sample tissue, and improved reliable lab studies and results has taken the guesswork out of diagnosing things based on symtoms and exam. Couple that with the legal system, and there is no way you are going to treat something, no matter how confident you are, until you get the go ahead from path or rads or the lab of exactly what's there. Go ahead and treat a IIa small cell lung cancer in some manner that isn't evidence based in the literature and have some complication happen and then get sued. Then try to explain to the jury that you didn't use reseached based criteria because you were using your intellect and factoring other things in the treatment and see how far that gets you!

I'm happy there are people that enjoy Internal Medicine. The health care system would not work without them. If Medicine is really your thing and Radiology doesn't appeal to you at all, then go for it. However if you are considering BOTH, then please take the time to think about things very strongly, talk to as many people as you can who are more advanced in their careers before making that decision. The original poster cited reasons of the intellectual problem solving of medicine and the opportunity to do a fellowship as reasons to do it over Radiology. You added (or inferred) people skills. I'm simply saying from experiece that those reasons are based on stereotypes and are not very valid in actual practice. Again, I'm only talking to the people who this thread was directed to: those trying to decide between Radiology and IM. For those of you that clearly enjoy medicine and radiology is just not your thing, go for it...God bless you, I'm glad you are out there and were made the way you are!!!

For those of you making a CHOICE, consider this:

Job A: 600,000K/year, 45 hour weeks, no weekends, no overnight call, 13 weeks off a year, ability to do your job anywhere in the world, knowing you will get off at 5 pm no matter what, knowing your evening plans will not be interrupted, consulted upon by most every physician in the hospital on big cases and have their actions based upon what you say, seeing every single big case that comes through the hospital no matter what dicipline, eating meals exactly when you want to, going to the bathroom exactly when you want to.

Job B: 200,000K/year, 60 hour weeks, rotating weekends and overnight call which are brutal because you are covering all your partners on your own, sleepless nights, early mornings, unexpected late evenings, 6 weeks off a year, if you have to switch job locations/cities you have to start over by getting a whole new patient base, social issues, missing out on most of the big cases, and being keyholed into a specific type of medicine for your career.

Ask your family, friends, loved ones what they would choose. Think about what will be important to you in 10 years, in 20. Think of what the general public would choose if given these two options.

Even if the "intellectual" nature of medicine were slightly better, would it be worth it? For every one "cool" case you are going to see, you are going to up in the middle of the night twenty-fold more times dealing with mundane, routine, boring things.
 
lankysudanese--I apologize for coming across so harsh above. Of course I'm biased. Every opinion is going to have an individual biases embedded in it. I feel strongly about this issue because I almost made the biggest mistake of my life doing medicine over radiology, and would like to encourage others who are trying to make that choice not to potentially make the same mistake. Given my level of training and relative experience and exposure to the system of medicine, I'd also argue that I'm able to give a less biased opinion than yourself on the topic. I don't think you are far along enough to have shaken general stereotypes of specialties nor do you fully understand what each specialty actually does on a given day...especially in the private practice world...your "people skills" comment is a good indicator of that. You probably also believe that Radiologists sit in the dark all day alone and look at films.

All of medicine, to a great degree, is "cookbook" these days...even Radiology. As I said earlier, technology in terms of imaging as well as easy ability to sample tissue, and improved reliable lab studies and results has taken the guesswork out of diagnosing things based on symtoms and exam. Couple that with the legal system, and there is no way you are going to treat something, no matter how confident you are, until you get the go ahead from path or rads or the lab of exactly what's there. Go ahead and treat a IIa small cell lung cancer in some manner that isn't evidence based in the literature and have some complication happen and then get sued. Then try to explain to the jury that you didn't use reseached based criteria because you were using your intellect and factoring other things in the treatment and see how far that gets you!

I'm happy there are people that enjoy Internal Medicine. The health care system would not work without them. If Medicine is really your thing and Radiology doesn't appeal to you at all, then go for it. However if you are considering BOTH, then please take the time to think about things very strongly, talk to as many people as you can who are more advanced in their careers before making that decision. The original poster cited reasons of the intellectual problem solving of medicine and the opportunity to do a fellowship as reasons to do it over Radiology. You added (or inferred) people skills. I'm simply saying from experiece that those reasons are based on stereotypes and are not very valid in actual practice. Again, I'm only talking to the people who this thread was directed to: those trying to decide between Radiology and IM. For those of you that clearly enjoy medicine and radiology is just not your thing, go for it...God bless you, I'm glad you are out there and were made the way you are!!!

For those of you making a CHOICE, consider this:

Job A: 600,000K/year, 45 hour weeks, no weekends, no overnight call, 13 weeks off a year, ability to do your job anywhere in the world, knowing you will get off at 5 pm no matter what, knowing your evening plans will not be interrupted, consulted upon by most every physician in the hospital on big cases and have their actions based upon what you say, seeing every single big case that comes through the hospital no matter what dicipline, eating meals exactly when you want to, going to the bathroom exactly when you want to.

Job B: 200,000K/year, 60 hour weeks, rotating weekends and overnight call which are brutal because you are covering all your partners on your own, sleepless nights, early mornings, unexpected late evenings, 6 weeks off a year, if you have to switch job locations/cities you have to start over by getting a whole new patient base, social issues, missing out on most of the big cases, and being keyholed into a specific type of medicine for your career.

Ask your family, friends, loved ones what they would choose. Think about what will be important to you in 10 years, in 20. Think of what the general public would choose if given these two options.

Even if the "intellectual" nature of medicine were slightly better, would it be worth it? For every one "cool" case you are going to see, you are going to up in the middle of the night twenty-fold more times dealing with mundane, routine, boring things.

now that is a much more professional response. you are somewhat correct regarding my relative naivety, as compared to your experience, but I have spoken to faculty members (radiology and IM) about what makes them wake up in the morning looking forward to go into work, and I was more attracted by the reasons that the IM docs gave. The lifestyle and financial benefits of rads are very substantial, which is why many people who are on the borderline end up choosing it. I am planning to go into ID, where the average pay is ~110K, the hours are >60h/wk, and decisions/diagnoses are mainly clinical (a pneumonia is a pneumonia, regardless of whether or not there is an infiltrate). And regardless of how much radiologists think they are involved in the care of individual patients, it won't even begin to approach the level of involvement of IM docs. I look forward to taking call q4 to take care of my millionth case of HTN + DM + CHF + ESRD + COPD, as much as you will look forward to choosing the color of your 40ft yacht.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
lankysudanese--I apologize for coming across so harsh above. Of course I'm biased. Every opinion is going to have an individual biases embedded in it. I feel strongly about this issue because I almost made the biggest mistake of my life doing medicine over radiology, and would like to encourage others who are trying to make that choice not to potentially make the same mistake. Given my level of training and relative experience and exposure to the system of medicine, I'd also argue that I'm able to give a less biased opinion than yourself on the topic. I don't think you are far along enough to have shaken general stereotypes of specialties nor do you fully understand what each specialty actually does on a given day...especially in the private practice world...your "people skills" comment is a good indicator of that. You probably also believe that Radiologists sit in the dark all day alone and look at films.

All of medicine, to a great degree, is "cookbook" these days...even Radiology. As I said earlier, technology in terms of imaging as well as easy ability to sample tissue, and improved reliable lab studies and results has taken the guesswork out of diagnosing things based on symtoms and exam. Couple that with the legal system, and there is no way you are going to treat something, no matter how confident you are, until you get the go ahead from path or rads or the lab of exactly what's there. Go ahead and treat a IIa small cell lung cancer in some manner that isn't evidence based in the literature and have some complication happen and then get sued. Then try to explain to the jury that you didn't use reseached based criteria because you were using your intellect and factoring other things in the treatment and see how far that gets you!

I'm happy there are people that enjoy Internal Medicine. The health care system would not work without them. If Medicine is really your thing and Radiology doesn't appeal to you at all, then go for it. However if you are considering BOTH, then please take the time to think about things very strongly, talk to as many people as you can who are more advanced in their careers before making that decision. The original poster cited reasons of the intellectual problem solving of medicine and the opportunity to do a fellowship as reasons to do it over Radiology. You added (or inferred) people skills. I'm simply saying from experiece that those reasons are based on stereotypes and are not very valid in actual practice. Again, I'm only talking to the people who this thread was directed to: those trying to decide between Radiology and IM. For those of you that clearly enjoy medicine and radiology is just not your thing, go for it...God bless you, I'm glad you are out there and were made the way you are!!!

For those of you making a CHOICE, consider this:

Job A: 600,000K/year, 45 hour weeks, no weekends, no overnight call, 13 weeks off a year, ability to do your job anywhere in the world, knowing you will get off at 5 pm no matter what, knowing your evening plans will not be interrupted, consulted upon by most every physician in the hospital on big cases and have their actions based upon what you say, seeing every single big case that comes through the hospital no matter what dicipline, eating meals exactly when you want to, going to the bathroom exactly when you want to.

Job B: 200,000K/year, 60 hour weeks, rotating weekends and overnight call which are brutal because you are covering all your partners on your own, sleepless nights, early mornings, unexpected late evenings, 6 weeks off a year, if you have to switch job locations/cities you have to start over by getting a whole new patient base, social issues, missing out on most of the big cases, and being keyholed into a specific type of medicine for your career.

Ask your family, friends, loved ones what they would choose. Think about what will be important to you in 10 years, in 20. Think of what the general public would choose if given these two options.

Even if the "intellectual" nature of medicine were slightly better, would it be worth it? For every one "cool" case you are going to see, you are going to up in the middle of the night twenty-fold more times dealing with mundane, routine, boring things.

thank you for making the competition for us MS3's 10x worse! :laugh:
 
thank you for making the competition for us MS3's 10x worse! :laugh:

Yeah, seriously. We're trying to keep as many people away from radiology as possible. Don't encourage them. At least, not until I've safely matched at my #1. :D
 
are YOU serious?

Ok fine, diagnose pneumonia clinically with a normal CXR. Use dullness to percussion or tactile fremitus or some other BS physical diagnosis that is not evidence-based. See what happens.
 
Ok fine, diagnose pneumonia clinically with a normal CXR. Use dullness to percussion or tactile fremitus or some other BS physical diagnosis that is not evidence-based. See what happens.

this is already getting off-topic, but here goes...

let me tell you what happens, Mr. Evidence-Based Medicine, at the Osler Medical service (one of the finest internal medicine services in the world) every freakin day. An intern hears egophony in a patient who presents with dyspnea, chest pain and fever. He orders a chest x-ray, which shows evidence of chronic COPD but no infiltrate or consolidation. He then intern orders antibiotics and the patient's condition significantly improves over a few days.
A patient with egophony has a likelihood ratio of 8.6 of having pneumonia (Metlay, JP. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:109-118) while infiltrates are indistinguishable from atelectasis on many a CXR read (by a radiologist). Internal medicine is the most EBM-driven field, and clinical diagnoses will remain clinical diagnoses.
 
this is already getting off-topic, but here goes...

let me tell you what happens, Mr. Evidence-Based Medicine, at the Osler Medical service (one of the finest internal medicine services in the world) every freakin day. An intern hears egophony in a patient who presents with dyspnea, chest pain and fever. He orders a chest x-ray, which shows evidence of chronic COPD but no infiltrate or consolidation. He then intern orders antibiotics and the patient's condition significantly improves over a few days. ]
oh that proves it, he definitely had pneumonia :sleep:
A patient with egophony has a likelihood ratio of 8.6 of having pneumonia (Metlay, JP. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:109-118) while infiltrates are indistinguishable from atelectasis on many a CXR read (by a radiologist). Internal medicine is the most EBM-driven field, and clinical diagnoses will remain clinical diagnoses.
Did you even read that article? Let me quote from it:
"The history and physical examination cannot provide a high level of certainty in the diagnosis of PNA."
Read page 2 here: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/139/11/955.pdf

I can't believe you're actually making this argument. There are plenty of examples where diagnoses are made clinically and not radiographically, but youi picked one that can't be diagnosed with a clear CXR.

Well I'm not going to argue anymore. In all honesty, good luck with your internal medicine career. I hope you enjoy it.
 
why would you ask this question? the reason Rads is more competitive is because more people want it. you still learn a lot of diagnoses, and all in the comfort of your dark enclave. Asking this question is like asking: Should I get a Lexus or a Taurus?
Radiology is the Lexus - you get it if you have the means.
 
Radiology is the Lexus - you get it if you have the means.

radiology is a more competitive specialty to get into - mainly because it is highly sought after. it completely revolves around diagnoses, and most of the time is spent in a dark enclave.

but that doesn't mean that is better than another specialty, in the same way that a Lexus is better than a Taurus. the difference between specialties is like the difference between apples and pears - they appeal to different people.
 
Radiologists sit in a darkened, quiet room all day staring at the computer. Although I love films, I love the physics they do, and I think their work is absolutely essential, I just couldn't sit still that long every day all day without falling asleep.
 
Radiologists sit in a darkened, quiet room all day staring at the computer. Although I love films, I love the physics they do, and I think their work is absolutely essential, I just couldn't sit still that long every day all day without falling asleep.
better than falling asleep during the daily 4 hours of rounding :sleep:
 
I'm thoroughly enjoying these Rad vs IM discussions. Lots of great points. But seeing as how this thread is unfolding, I'm going to have to agree with Lankysudanese.

I'm beginning to see a new phenomen on SDN this year. Rads wannabes and residents bashing other fields. LET'S KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE GUYS. If you love what Radiologists do (which is amazing) then go do it. But don't underscore other fields as somehow "less important" or "a stupid choice" b/c they're not banking $500K+ while working 9-5pm.

Imagine if Peds was the "hot girl" at the party type of field and they made bank. Would you then run around calling everyone else an IDIOT for choosing to treat adults?

Come on now people. We're getting caught up in this SDN Rads ego phenomenon WAY too much these days!
 
Yeah, there's a couple of those rads guys around here who like to stir things up a little bit too much.

My choice was between internal medicine (followed by a subspeciatly, maybe cards) and radiology. I chose radiology.

Despite the occasional patient interaction in radiology, the biggest difference in your day to day life will be that as a medicine doc or specialist, YOU will be the patients doctor. YOU will interact with them on a day to day basis. They will rely on YOU. If this is something you crave and desire, DO NOT go into radiology. If you want more money than general medicine, you can do very well in many medicine sub-specialties.

If dealing with patients tires you, or isn't what excites you about medicine. If the ever evolving technology and gadgetry of radiology is exciting. If seeing scans on the majority of the interesting diagnoses in the hospital intrigues you. Choose radiology.

Don't expect a relaxed latte sipping day as a radiologist, though. Yes, we can have coffee at our workstation (and music). However, in most private practices these days, the ever increasing number of studies and interruptions from techs and clinicians keep rads extremely busy and under the gun all day long. Those places with the ultra-high salaries are usually even more so (some new hires at the places that have extremely high volume are there until 8 at night every night trying to catch up. Usually they get faster as time goes on).

I would definitely consider your interest in direct patient care to be the number one factor in making this decision. The other factors are important as well. Good luck.
 
Great discussion, everyone. I totally agree with Whisker Barrel Cortex's recent post.

And regardless of how much radiologists think they are involved in the care of individual patients, it won't even begin to approach the level of involvement of IM docs.

I think you are correct, if as you state, you qualify it by applying it to individual patients. However, this cannot be applied as a blanket statement to the "impact" of an IM doc vs a radiologist, because radiologists "see" more patients, spending less time on each, on average. I'm not saying that you hold this belief, lankysudanese, but a common myopic misconception is that radiologists don't help patients. This belief is probably held by some people who think you have to have your hands on (or in) a patient to be helping him/her. I am going into radiology because I found it to have the most problem-solving thinking with respect to diagnosis, which IMHO is the most challenging and interesting part of medicine, and therefore the most intellectually satisfying (to me). Not to say that IM doesn't have challenging problem-solving thinking, but based on my 3 months in IM and 1 month in rads, rads has a lot more time spent on this type of thinking, while having very little paperwork and social work issues (both of these take lots of valuable time from IM docs).

Good luck to everyone who's making this decision.
 
Great discussion, everyone. I totally agree with Whisker Barrel Cortex's recent post.



I think you are correct, if as you state, you qualify it by applying it to individual patients. However, this cannot be applied as a blanket statement to the "impact" of an IM doc vs a radiologist, because radiologists "see" more patients, spending less time on each, on average. I'm not saying that you hold this belief, lankysudanese, but a common myopic misconception is that radiologists don't help patients. This belief is probably held by some people who think you have to have your hands on (or in) a patient to be helping him/her. I am going into radiology because I found it to have the most problem-solving thinking with respect to diagnosis, which IMHO is the most challenging and interesting part of medicine, and therefore the most intellectually satisfying (to me). Not to say that IM doesn't have challenging problem-solving thinking, but based on my 3 months in IM and 1 month in rads, rads has a lot more time spent on this type of thinking, while having very little paperwork and social work issues (both of these take lots of valuable time from IM docs).

Good luck to everyone who's making this decision.

like it says in my post, my argument was regarding individual patient care - which was what the argument with ScooterBank revolved around.

i completely agree that rads is very diagnostically-driven, and that paperwork is big problem in IM. radiologists play an essential role in patient care. i wasn't denying that - i was just refuting ScooterBanks comments that IM physicians are completely dependent on rad/path input in their decision-making and patient care, b/c i didn't get that sense during my IM clerkship.
 
like it says in my post, my argument was regarding individual patient care - which was what the argument with ScooterBank revolved around.

i completely agree that rads is very diagnostically-driven, and that paperwork is big problem in IM. radiologists play an essential role in patient care. i wasn't denying that - i was just refuting ScooterBanks comments that IM physicians are completely dependent on rad/path input in their decision-making and patient care, b/c i didn't get that sense during my IM clerkship.

I know your statement applied to individual patients - re-read my post - I say "if as you state". I wanted to address the assumption (that some IM docs make, but not you) that extends this line of reasoning from involvement with an individual patient to impact on overall patient care.

I would venture to guess that some IM docs feel that their field is on a higher moral ground than a field like rads because they adopt this second line of reasoning (i.e. that they are more important to overall patient care than radiologists). If this is the reason for some of the arrogance I've witnessed, then I would argue that they are mistaken. If, however, this moral high ground is assumed by some IM docs due to increased sacrifice (answering calls in the middle of the night, working on average more hours for less money, etc.), then that is much more easily justifiable.

I bring this up because a decent number of IM docs I've met and worked with seem to have this attitude, and I think the 'martyr' aspect of their work helps them get through the long days. If people are deciding between IM and rads, I think it's a valid point to bring up - do you feel good about making more sacrifices for your patients? Because, on average, you will make more personal sacrifices in IM. But first you must be completely honest with yourself and not assume that your impact on the world will necessarily be greater.

I think if you spend the time to think about all these issues honestly you will come to the field that's best for you. Good luck to everyone.
 
is it true that more and more radiology is being outsourced and so the demand for them is decreasing?? i wonder if in 4 yrs when i'm ready to match how many positions will be available for your basic diagnostic radiologist.
 
is it true that more and more radiology is being outsourced and so the demand for them is decreasing?? i wonder if in 4 yrs when i'm ready to match how many positions will be available for your basic diagnostic radiologist.

No, demand for Rads is NOT decreasing. Radiologists are inundated with work.

Not sure how many radiology positions will be available in 4 years. Many I assume. You're refering to WORK, not residency spots, correct?

You'll be looking for a "job" in 8 years, not 4 my friend..;)
 
No, demand for Rads is NOT decreasing. Radiologists are inundated with work.

Not sure how many radiology positions will be available in 4 years. Many I assume. You're refering to WORK, not residency spots, correct?

You'll be looking for a "job" in 8 years, not 4 my friend..;)

yea yea, since i'm assuming residency positions wont change much, i meant in i guess 8-9 years how many "jobs" they're will be
 
Where does Anesthesiology fit into the comparisons?? It seems more "clinical" (as in more patient contact, working in the OR, and with nurses/pas/ER docs...etc). It also probably has a better lifestyle (maybe not as good as Rads) and better pay? More procedure oriented and with a large variety of cases and levels of participation.
 
Top