- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 314
- Reaction score
- 2
Is being a great surgeon nature or nurture?
I've been thinking about this recently after I finished reading "Walk on Water" as well as my observations in the hospital with the surgeons I've worked with.
Different points in the book/real world that I've noticed that back up either view, so I wanted to ask to get more responses from people who have more knowledge on the subject than I do.
(If anybody hasn't heard of the book, it's about Roger Mee, who I believe just retired after being one of the best, some would say the best, pediatric cardiac surgeon in the world)
Nature:
1. In the book, several of his fellows that worked under him described Roger as having innate skill. One fellow was quoted by the author as saying "Roger's repairs look like God did them."
2. In interviews with Roger, he mentions knowing innately how much tension to put on sutures-not too much, not too little. Overall, it's like he has a "feeling" for the heart and when the repair is right.
Another skill that was noted was that he could see trouble coming when it was still 3-4 steps ahead before anybody else sensed it, which allowed him to intervene before it hit.
It was almost as if he had a sixth sense, above what machines, or vitals, or whatever else would tell him.
3. In one example in the book, he did a biventricular repair on a kid that was told by various CT surgeons at other places, as well as cardiologists, that the kid would have to have a single ventricle repair. If I remember correctly, somebody in the book said that Roger is probably one of a handful of people who not only make a single ventricle repair work post-op, but even have seen the possibility for a single ventricle repair in the first place.
4. In the hospital I worked at, I've heard plenty of times of certain surgeons being regarded by other physicians, nurses, etc... as "gifted" or "skilled".
Obviously, all of these are more towards the nature side of spectrum.
I would assume not everyone can do a repair "like God did it" or has a "sixth sense".
Nurture:
1. The book vividly points out that Roger is an obsessive compulsive perfectionist who "if he doesn't feel that anything is perfect, even 1 suture, he'll do it over again until it's perfect." "If it's not perfect, everybody stays until the operation is perfect" is another quote. The author described him as being intolerant of anything less than perfection.
2. In the hospital I worked at, I've made the observation that a same exact surgeons from above who are described as "gifted" are also extremely OCD and perfectionist in their ways. They want to know everything, be on top of everything, and be in control of everything. And if it's not perfect, it's horrible...
3. He also was known for being very forceful about having a good team around him and realized that he is only one part of the team and that in order for him to be successful he needed to have a top notch team around him.
In other words, if he felt you not to be good enough, you didn't work with his patients, end of story.
These support the nurture idea. Anybody can be OCD and a detail oriented perfectionist and demand perfection around them.
So there's arguments on both sides, so what do all of you think? Nature or nurture?
(Nothing is 100%, so it's obviously not only one or the other, but a combination of both. Which side of the spectrum do you think the answer lies?)
I've been thinking about this recently after I finished reading "Walk on Water" as well as my observations in the hospital with the surgeons I've worked with.
Different points in the book/real world that I've noticed that back up either view, so I wanted to ask to get more responses from people who have more knowledge on the subject than I do.
(If anybody hasn't heard of the book, it's about Roger Mee, who I believe just retired after being one of the best, some would say the best, pediatric cardiac surgeon in the world)
Nature:
1. In the book, several of his fellows that worked under him described Roger as having innate skill. One fellow was quoted by the author as saying "Roger's repairs look like God did them."
2. In interviews with Roger, he mentions knowing innately how much tension to put on sutures-not too much, not too little. Overall, it's like he has a "feeling" for the heart and when the repair is right.
Another skill that was noted was that he could see trouble coming when it was still 3-4 steps ahead before anybody else sensed it, which allowed him to intervene before it hit.
It was almost as if he had a sixth sense, above what machines, or vitals, or whatever else would tell him.
3. In one example in the book, he did a biventricular repair on a kid that was told by various CT surgeons at other places, as well as cardiologists, that the kid would have to have a single ventricle repair. If I remember correctly, somebody in the book said that Roger is probably one of a handful of people who not only make a single ventricle repair work post-op, but even have seen the possibility for a single ventricle repair in the first place.
4. In the hospital I worked at, I've heard plenty of times of certain surgeons being regarded by other physicians, nurses, etc... as "gifted" or "skilled".
Obviously, all of these are more towards the nature side of spectrum.
I would assume not everyone can do a repair "like God did it" or has a "sixth sense".
Nurture:
1. The book vividly points out that Roger is an obsessive compulsive perfectionist who "if he doesn't feel that anything is perfect, even 1 suture, he'll do it over again until it's perfect." "If it's not perfect, everybody stays until the operation is perfect" is another quote. The author described him as being intolerant of anything less than perfection.
2. In the hospital I worked at, I've made the observation that a same exact surgeons from above who are described as "gifted" are also extremely OCD and perfectionist in their ways. They want to know everything, be on top of everything, and be in control of everything. And if it's not perfect, it's horrible...
3. He also was known for being very forceful about having a good team around him and realized that he is only one part of the team and that in order for him to be successful he needed to have a top notch team around him.
In other words, if he felt you not to be good enough, you didn't work with his patients, end of story.
These support the nurture idea. Anybody can be OCD and a detail oriented perfectionist and demand perfection around them.
So there's arguments on both sides, so what do all of you think? Nature or nurture?
(Nothing is 100%, so it's obviously not only one or the other, but a combination of both. Which side of the spectrum do you think the answer lies?)