I agree that medical school is much better than a mindless clerical job, but I don't think this is a fair comparison because a person who is capable of getting into medical school doesn't have that type of job as their only other option. If you want to make a fair comparison, you should look at medicine vs other professional paths such as law, engineering, business, science, etc.
I agree we should not be comparing the current
MEDICAL EDUCATION SYSTEM to
MINDLESS CLERICAL JOBS.
How about comparing
current MEDICAL EDUCATION SYSTEM to some other new
INNOVATIVE MEDICAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS.
I think many of you already know in your hearts that there are probably better ways to train doctors that leave out the hierarchical indoctrination and the nonproductive busywork. So this should naturally beg the question, if things CAN be done better, why are things restricted to being done this same one old-fashioned way?
In all honesty, as much as it would benefit a nation of medical students for the powers that be to allow innovation into medical education, that's a drop in the bucket compared to how much it would benefit a nation of patients for the powers that be to allow innovation into the overall delivery of healthcare. And THAT'S why we should be passionate about thinking outside the box.
So fine, you say, what's the next step?
That answer is different for each of us. For me, it begins with what I'm doing, namely gathering information from medical students as to what opinions they have on the acceptability of the current system and helping stimulate open-minded thinking.
I have ideas, but I know that if I just force it down upon everyone, it would not be nearly as helpful as facilitating each of you to figure things out on your own.
So one place to start is to think about the balance between an individual-freedom / free-market / anarchy model and a central-planning / bureaucratic / government-regulated model of healthcare delivery? By the way, I'm trying to be balanced in the use of good-sounding and bad-sounding terms to described similar things. "free-market" sounds good. "anarchy" sounds bad. But they describe the same concept. "central-planning" sounds bad. "government-regulated" sounds better. But they describe the same concept.
So here is the question: To what extent is it better to shift medical decision power more to the provider and patient and to what extent is it better to shift medical decision power to politicians and insurance committees. I will concede that 100% in either direction is not as optimal as somewhere in the middle. But as it stands, are we too far one way or another? (this is a rhetorical question as my own mind is made up on this), but each of you may want to ask yourself. Should more power be in the hands of central planning committees to regulate the delivery of healthcare, the pay of providers and the choices of patients or should more power be in the hands of the patients and doctors themselves? Whatever your answer is, justify why you feel that way?
Perhaps it's time to take this to another thread if there is sufficient interest. Thanks!