Right, and that's part of the point. In the General Residency area, we were discussing this indirectly. I mean, nursing and residency are both manipulated professions. Nurses can get paid six figures and work about three days a week on average after only two years of training (plus putting in years of time, to be fair). And yet there's a shortage because it's unionized that way. They're "restricted" to working three days a week. Anything more and they get paid so much money it would make a lawyer blush, which is a big incentive for the hospital not to do overtime. As a result, we have a shortage of nurses even though every patient you have is related to a nurse in some way (ever notice that?).
However you want to define it, there is a nursing shortage, whether it is by number or by hours. Residents on the other hand are much more numerous than available spots both in numbers and in hours.
[/QUOTE] Residents, same thing. The way programs are set up, a program can kick out a resident any time it wants for any reason and get a replacement literally that same day. And a resident really has no choice, due to the debt load he incurs in med school. That's the key, really. I assure you that if you made it feasible for residents to walk away from residency with a reasonable debt load, a sizeable minority (e.g., 15%) would immediately do so. That would cripple residencies and, therefore, hospitals, which is why the situation is kept that way.[/QUOTE]
Well, residents NOT same thing. Residents are STUDENTS who are still training in their profession and do not have many carreer options if they were to drop out of residency and try to practice medicine. They have not just chosen a job but a career that they love. It is not merely their debt, but also their entire profession that holds them hostage for many years. So there is no way you can say what percentage of people would just walk away if they had no debt because the ties and bonds are deeper than just financial. Remember, we are not nurses.
Even if your arguement was true, I dont think hospitals would have much problem replacing residents that "walked away" by all those that don't match yearly and are desparately waiting to get the spot.
[/QUOTE]I know that's the way it is, but I'm merely pointing out the facts. Because, no offense, you're part of the problem. Rather than say "this is wrong, we should fix it," you're one of the people who say "just accept it, get the heck out of there, let the system continue as it is, and be glad you got out. Let the suckers after you take it." Most people are like that, actually, which is the problem.[/QUOTE]
I am not offended. I know what you are pointing out and what your intention is here. I do disagree about me being part of the problem. I am just another resident who has faced this problem as other residents have and simply chosen a different way to deal with it. It may not be the same way you (if you are a resident) deal with it. But I assure you, it works better than yelling and throwing things.
As trainees, we are simply in no position to always get respect, avoid bad consults, have attendings talk nice to us, hug us, and respect us all the time, get paid well, work good hours, have every nurse fired as soon as they look at us in a bad way, etc etc etc. We are trying to complete our training in an imperfect system, that while depends on all residents to run, is much bigger and powerful than each of us or most of us put together. And while this is sad, wrong, unfair, etc., it is reality. As lovey dovey as co-residents maybe in the lounge with you, they will never be willing to "unionize" with you and "walk away" or not come to work over something idealistic. Again, maybe not right, but reality.
So while I understand what you are saying, I am telling the OP of a realistic way to deal with a problem that will only become bigger and more hurtful with idealism.
