How long can a pathologist work until he should retire?

[Unty]

Just curious at what age do the practicing pathologists here think is a good age for a pathologist to retire assuming that hes in good health (no serious medical problems) and has good vision. The only problem would be normal age related decline in cognitive ability. Can a pathologist work into his 70s or maybe 80 years of age?

How old were the pathologists that you have worked with who were having issues at work and what were these issues?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[musom]

I don't think they should work past 70. 62-65 might be the age where they could start to peter out. At least that's my personal goal. My old partner retired at 71 and he was twenty-five years outdated.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

I have seen many 80+ year old pathologists here in the Midwest. Some sold out and pocketed a lot of money from the national labs so I have no clue why they continued to work. 55 to 60 is the time to hang it up in my opinion.

 

[jupiterianvibe]

best pathologist ive seen was in his late seventies and is still working.
nobody should be forced to retire because of age.
our job markets a mess because of overtraining. that will never change.

 

[cmz]

Half of it is money -- it's hard to give up a well-paying gig. The other half are probably worried that they will die soon after retirement.

 

[Euchromatin]

I think it depends entirely on the individual. Not sure that my experience is broadly applicable, but all of the working pathologists I have personally interacted with who were about 70 or older (at least 4, might have been as many as 7-9 - I didn't always know exact ages) kept themselves at least tolerably up to date and I had no concern about their cognitive abilities whatsoever. Most of those that continue(d) to work and hadn't retired by that age were also exceptionally health-conscious - took frequent/regular walks during the day, healthy diet and weight, had very active hobbies outside of work like golfing, hiking, mountain climbing, endurance sports, etc.

I have certainly heard second/third hand horror stories of older pathologists working alone or in very small groups who were completely out of date and/or otherwise practicing in an unacceptable fashion. I think the most dramatic story I heard (not sure if true) was of someone practicing alone in a very rural area who signed out all the pap smears as negative without looking at them because "farm girls" would never have multiple sexual partners or something equally ridiculous along those lines.

 

[Assmosis]

Some...Until they are physically or mentally disabled (I.e. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, physical injury I honestly don't know what keeps them going. But I admire the dedication.

 

[icpshootyz]

My group kicks you off partnership at 65. So if you want to stay on after that it's as an employed pathologist at significantly reduced pay. So far everyone just retires at 65, no one has stayed on. That being said, I've worked with some amazing pathologists that were into their 80's, so I don't think there's a specific age for everyone. Probably an individual decision.

 

[yaah]

This is user dependent. Both for the specific individual and for those they work with.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Bitcoin and the market are both down big time so we may see many more octogenarian pathologists.

 

[coroner]

How old were the pathologists that you have worked with who were having issues at work and what were these issues?

To answer the op's original question.

We had to kick out someone who was around 79 y.o. due to competence issues. I was newly hired at the time and not-partnered so the decision was already made before I joined the practice. The other pathologists told me the individual started to show signs of decline around 2-3 years prior. Specifically, his reports were becoming more vague and indecisive and he was also misinterpreting immunos (calling positive i/o negative). I don't know if other clinicians complained or noticed it yet, but the other partners certainly did because they had to tidy up his messes on more than one occasion. That being said, I heard he was a very dedicated, excellent pathologist prior to showing these symptoms. The next most senior pathologist in the group had a meeting with him and administration and he was "gently" urged to sign a contract surrendering his medical staff privileges giving him one year left. I don't think he put up a fight, because he saw the writing on the wall. So fortunately, his final tenure didn't get contentious. I only worked with him briefly before he retired and his motor functions and social skills seemed fine to me. The only thing I noticed was he took a little bit of time to spit out certain words that seemed to be on the tip of his tongue.

Another pathologist whom I never met, but know of because our group acquired his contract due to forced retirement at 80 y.o. He was doing solo practice. So, when the s*it hit the fan, there were no other partners to act as a buffer. Therefore, the first people to notice were clinicians who immediately complained to hospital administration. In this case; however, unlike the previous example, this pathologist was in denial and insisted he could still do the job. The hospital didn't want to get into a potential age discrimination lawsuit without covering themselves, so they made him go to the state medical board and take a mental competence exam which he flunked. This gave them valid grounds to let him go and our group then took over. After we started practicing there, one day I asked the lab manager how long did this pathologist plan on working and the lab manager said the pathologist never once mentioned anything about retiring and was ready to die at the scope. On his last day at the hospital, I heard his wife came with a box to help him collect a few personal items, but he left his entire medical library which is quite impressive. Afterwards, I asked around the lab what happened to him, and no one seemed to know...

 

[LADoc00]

Anyone that HAS to work past 20 or so years in practice is:
1.) a relationship idiot who has left of trail of financial ruin from divorce
2.) has a gambling addiction
3.) drug or alcohol problem
4.) is a crappy parent with grown kids completely dependent on you for their subsistence
5.) has been unlucky and is responsible for a severely disabled adult child
6.) had health issues somewhere in that 20 that required a break
7.) lives in California or NY where taxes have sucked your life dry like a Nosferatu
8.) Spent far too much buying into a sham practice
9.) Was kidnapped at some point and forced to pay a massive ransom
10.) Is addicted to spending

Given 95%+ of pathologists should comfortably retire in 20 years, that would put the age at retirement around 55 if you spent anytime doing research or jr faculty at some medical school or bounced between some places initially before settling etc.

Anything past 55 and one of the 10 reasons above describes your brand of fail.

But if you are looking for some upper limit on age, I dont know. I know 60 years that are brain dead and 95 year olds that are razor sharp....but FOLKS THIS JOB ISNT SO AWESOME ANYONE SHOULD DIE DOING IT, TRUST ME.

 

[SEpathguy]

Anyone that HAS to work past 20 or so years in practice is:
1.) a relationship idiot who has left of trail of financial ruin from divorce
2.) has a gambling addiction
3.) drug or alcohol problem
4.) is a crappy parent with grown kids completely dependent on you for their subsistence
5.) has been unlucky and is responsible for a severely disabled adult child
6.) had health issues somewhere in that 20 that required a break
7.) lives in California or NY where taxes have sucked your life dry like a Nosferatu
8.) Spent far too much buying into a sham practice
9.) Was kidnapped at some point and forced to pay a massive ransom
10.) Is addicted to spending

Given 95%+ of pathologists should comfortably retire in 20 years, that would put the age at retirement around 55 if you spent anytime doing research or jr faculty at some medical school or bounced between some places initially before settling etc.

Anything past 55 and one of the 10 reasons above describes your brand of fail.

But if you are looking for some upper limit on age, I dont know. I know 60 years that are brain dead and 95 year olds that are razor sharp....but FOLKS THIS JOB ISNT SO AWESOME ANYONE SHOULD DIE DOING IT, TRUST ME.

11.) Invested all they had in Bitcoin on Dec 16th, 2017

 

[icpshootyz]

Anyone that HAS to work past 20 or so years in practice is:
4.) is a crappy parent with grown kids completely dependent on you for their subsistence

Grown kids? What are those? When I'm 55 I'll still have kids in middle/high school.

 

[LADoc00]

11.) Invested all they had in Bitcoin on Dec 16th, 2017

SE, I think you might need to re-educate yourself on the very concept of "investing".

Devaluation of assets is only materially realized when that asset is sold and/or redeemed in fiat currency. The same as securities right? The performance of the stock market, cryptocurrency, commodities etc is only material to your retirement WHEN you redeem that asset for fiat. Prior to that, it is called "unrealized" gains and losses.

Im not here to give free financial advice, thats not my job, but assuming you are well diversified in many many different long term sectors the price of BTC on Dec 16th 2017 is literally totally immaterial to your retirement in say 2037. I have literally 1/100 of a single percent in cryptocurrency of my net worth. If it blows up and frankly I think it will, then Im smiling, if not Im totally unaffected.

 

[LADoc00]

Grown kids? What are those? When I'm 55 I'll still have kids in middle/high school.

You caught the disease of modern life: late life children. Decades of school, wasteland of dating scene in morally depraved urban centers, general societal degeneration etc. so I have a hard time holding guys accountable (mainly because I myself fell into this crap trap) for this but it is a huge huge problem.

This will screw you unfortunately. When you can least afford to ignore your health, you will still be working at full tilt still have to be earning at 100% level. Having kids in mid to late 40s will shave years or even a decade off your life as a man if you arent absolutely resolute to maintain your own health above all else.

Sadly, your likely younger wife could end up being the one enjoying your decades of hard work in pathology and medicine with a new guy while you undergo slow autolysis and the long drift into the void. I have seen many ladies actually enjoy a longer relationship with a 2nd partner spending all the $ on herself, her new man and new offspring than the kids of the 1st financially productive partner who often get ignored and excluded from financial resources. The fatal work ethic that did in the 1st dad and made all the resources literally sabotage his own natural selection success, a total tragedy.

 

[jupiterianvibe]

You caught the disease of modern life: late life children. Decades of school, wasteland of dating scene in morally depraved urban centers, general societal degeneration etc. so I have a hard time holding guys accountable (mainly because I myself fell into this crap trap) for this but it is a huge huge problem.

This will screw you unfortunately. When you can least afford to ignore your health, you will still be working at full tilt still have to be earning at 100% level. Having kids in mid to late 40s will shave years or even a decade off your life as a man if you arent absolutely resolute to maintain your own health above all else.

Sadly, your likely younger wife could end up being the one enjoying your decades of hard work in pathology and medicine with a new guy while you undergo slow autolysis and the long drift into the void. I have seen many ladies actually enjoy a longer relationship with a 2nd partner spending all the $ on herself, her new man and new offspring than the kids of the 1st financially productive partner who often get ignored and excluded from financial resources. The fatal work ethic that did in the 1st dad and made all the resources literally sabotage his own natural selection success, a total tragedy.

this is why i got snipped.
no kids for me.

 

[icpshootyz]

this is why i got snipped.
no kids for me.

Good for you. I don't even have any yet, and sort of don't want any. Technically I'm still hoping my wife comes around and decides she doesn't actually want kids. Or maybe once we do try one of us is infertile. But alas, chances are I'll get suckered into the reproduction cycle like every other fool.

 

[stickyshift]

Good for you. I don't even have any yet, and sort of don't want any. Technically I'm still hoping my wife comes around and decides she doesn't actually want kids. Or maybe once we do try one of us is infertile. But alas, chances are I'll get suckered into the reproduction cycle like every other fool.

I was able to put off the decision until 7 years into my marriage (I was 36 by then.). My wife delivered an ultimatum, but then found out we were infertile! Thing is, they had this technology called IVF, so now we have a 14 year old girl (who incidentally, is the light of our lives).

 

[LADoc00]

Hmm, not to totally derail this convo but if you are 100% sure you dont want kids and that is ABSOLUTELY a personal deep decision, then why get married? Marriage is far bigger risk factor for derailed retirement than kids in my experience. Its like you are watching your diet and keeping your weight down for healthy living but then going on a monthly cocaine binge..makes no sense to me. Just date right?

 

[LADoc00]

Im just mind-mapping some comments here because its interesting...

BUT If I am guy who isnt going to have children, then you are fulfilling the "male provisioning" role especially if you are on the front of the Pareto distribution in terms of high SES from being a physician. BUT you are not presenting any genetic risk to the woman because you have already agreed to no kids. She literally never has to do any trade off whatsoever in terms of sexual suitability vs. resource acquisition.

She is getting literally everything she could ever want from you and then given our divorce laws would be quite ethically free to get impregnated by other men exhibiting more dominant traits/dark triad traits and use YOUR resources to raise those offspring.

AND you will still have a curtailed lifespan and personal happiness because that is economic trade off for being high SES/far out on the Pareto distribution.

I literally see NO benefit whatsoever in getting married IF you dont want kids unless you have a Machiavellian plan to co-mingle some inheritance she is destined to get down the road. Or her parents own some big $ pathology practice?

Fill me in, this makes zero sense to me.

I have an anecdote from own past where I had a long term engagement with a girl who turned to me one day and said she wasnt sure she wanted kids. She was being honest. And she was a MDPhD at a very high level program. I thought it about that for like 2 weeks, realized in my mind that she envisioned a scenario where she was in the lab and I was in private practice. In this scenario she benefited from a resource gradient flow in her direction, a clear win. I thanked her heartily for her honesty and went my own way immediately afterward. Wasnt even emotional at all, was simple logic like a differential equation in calculus.

 

[stickyshift]

Im just mind-mapping some comments here because its interesting...

BUT If I am guy who isnt going to have children, then you are fulfilling the "male provisioning" role especially if you are on the front of the Pareto distribution in terms of high SES from being a physician. BUT you are not presenting any genetic risk to the woman because you have already agreed to no kids. She literally never has to do any trade off whatsoever in terms of sexual suitability vs. resource acquisition.

She is getting literally everything she could ever want from you and then given our divorce laws would be quite ethically free to get impregnated by other men exhibiting more dominant traits/dark triad traits and use YOUR resources to raise those offspring.

AND you will still have a curtailed lifespan and personal happiness because that is economic trade off for being high SES/far out on the Pareto distribution.

I literally see NO benefit whatsoever in getting married IF you dont want kids unless you have a Machiavellian plan to co-mingle some inheritance she is destined to get down the road. Or her parents own some big $ pathology practice?

Fill me in, this makes zero sense to me.

I have an anecdote from own past where I had a long term engagement with a girl who turned to me one day and said she wasnt sure she wanted kids. She was being honest. And she was a MDPhD at a very high level program. I thought it about that for like 2 weeks, realized in my mind that she envisioned a scenario where she was in the lab and I was in private practice. In this scenario she benefited from a resource gradient flow in her direction, a clear win. I thanked her heartily for her honesty and went my own way immediately afterward. Wasnt even emotional at all, was simple logic like a differential equation in calculus.

I would have to agree: unless you are absolutely certain she doesn't want kids, don't get married. Otherwise, one way or another, you're going to end up paying for the kids that she wants!

 

[LADoc00]

I would have to agree: unless you are absolutely certain she doesn't want kids, don't get married. Otherwise, one way or another, you're going to end up paying for the kids that she wants!

yah I could envision like 1000 ways where a guy who doesnt want kids yet gets married is totally and irrevocably hosed.
Off the top of my head:
1.) sabotages her own birth control
2.) has affairs almost continually because she feels entitled due to no kids rule of yours, literally your house is a massive gang bang the second you are at work signing out
3.) gets pregnant from affairs claiming your vasectomy failed
4.) feels you are less masculine after said vasectomy, has lots of affairs
5.) rides out the coaster until she is about 35-39 and then once she is nearing the "female wall of sexual marketability" just pops the chute, divorce and gets pregnant immediately afterward

Im not saying women or your woman is evil, this isnt about evil or evil intention. This is literally human evolution. Seems like you would baiting fate like some toolbag who keeps a grizzly bear as a pet and then is shocked it mauled him.

There is also NO WAY in heaven or hell I would trust someone else who said they didnt want kids. Are you a mind reader? Even professional military interrogators cant guarantee they are correctly assessing "unverifiable truth". How could you possibly imagine you are?

Trust is one thing, naivete however is a different animal.

If you actually water boarded your future wife and used a combination of mind altering drugs and classic interrogation techniques to ensure she also didnt want kids, dont post that. Just pm me, thanks.

 

[SEpathguy]

SE, I think you might need to re-educate yourself on the very concept of "investing".

Devaluation of assets is only materially realized when that asset is sold and/or redeemed in fiat currency. The same as securities right? The performance of the stock market, cryptocurrency, commodities etc is only material to your retirement WHEN you redeem that asset for fiat. Prior to that, it is called "unrealized" gains and losses.

Im not here to give free financial advice, thats not my job, but assuming you are well diversified in many many different long term sectors the price of BTC on Dec 16th 2017 is literally totally immaterial to your retirement in say 2037. I have literally 1/100 of a single percent in cryptocurrency of my net worth. If it blows up and frankly I think it will, then Im smiling, if not Im totally unaffected.

HODL your horses - I was just joking. Plus I'm in academics and have a stay at home wife and 3 kids, so I have no money to "invest" anyway.

 

[LADoc00]

HODL your horses - I was just joking. Plus I'm in academics and have a stay at home wife and 3 kids, so I have no money to "invest" anyway.

gotcha!

I applaud you on the stay at home X+3 kids. Hard to pull off now.

Beware of the stay at home X with no kids, that's called a dependent adult child living at home.

 

[SEpathguy]

gotcha!

I applaud you on the stay at home X+3 kids. Hard to pull off now.

Beware of the stay at home X with no kids, that's called a dependent adult child living at home.

Did you see what I did with the HODL? I was probably way too happy with myself for that one. Its sad the things that bring a smile to my face these days!

 

[LADoc00]

Did you see what I did with the HODL? I was probably way too happy with myself for that one. Its sad the things that bring a smile to my face these days!

I live next to tech guys who constantly shout HODL! I first I thought it Hodor and some GoT reference

nice work though, you could pass as a bay area tech bro easily. Just need to douchey untucked slim fit button down, fitted jeans and those 300 buck dress sneaker things and you would be ace!

 

[jupiterianvibe]

Hmm, not to totally derail this convo but if you are 100% sure you dont want kids and that is ABSOLUTELY a personal deep decision, then why get married? Marriage is far bigger risk factor for derailed retirement than kids in my experience. Its like you are watching your diet and keeping your weight down for healthy living but then going on a monthly cocaine binge..makes no sense to me. Just date right?

i was engaged to a self-made multimillionaire 10/10 and it still wouldnt be worth marrying her for the divorce proceedings. peace and freedom are priceless.
so many men have died to get freedom. why are we so eager to give it all away to one woman?

 

[Dave CX]

Fear of death is what keeps all sorts of people working long after they are able to retire.