Insincerity, selflessness, and apps

[visualwealth]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I dont understand why you think altruism should be in the admissions process. It isn't what makes a good doctor either. So by your logic, what should be the criteria?

Altruism cannot be quant. compared hence why I see a problem in how it can be used in the process to compare one app to another.

Simply put, schools should have the free choice to use whatever criteria they choose.

 

[DrBowtie]

Simply put, schools should have the free choice to use whatever criteria they choose.

I agree...but I didn't follow this persons logic.

 

[humuhumu]

however i dont think med schools take too kindly to premeds proclaiming from the get go that theyre going into rads or path. you know how it is with 90% of premeds claiming to want rural or inner city FP or peds.

Wow -- is this really true? Do most premeds claim they want to go into primary care?

 

[humuhumu]

Basically, I am saying compassion is a necessary element to a physician, in certain fields (admittedly a pathologist or even a surgeon need not be that compassionate, as their patient contact is pretty minimal).

Not sure about pathologists, but surgeons actually have patient and/or patient family contact every day.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

the country wasnt founded on altruistic principles, it was founded on hardcore capitalism, where self interest and greed drove the country to the greatness it is now sitting on. the wealthiest folks built the country--rockefeller, carnegie, vanderbilt, ford. but now people look at money and cry evil, whats happening? why does medicine of all professions have to fall victim to this line of thinking?

...This is… historically inaccurate. BTW slaves built this country but that's a different issue. Maybe it's cause I'm black, but I don't idealize the mindsets of our for-fathers and I don't think this should have anything to do with medicine today. Different times call for different lines of thinking.

 

[humuhumu]

Hmm, does altruism truly exist? I do not know if there is such an easy answer to this question. I think an integral part of being human is the notion of the self, and it is hard to imagine any real moment where someone can be selfless.

Everyone has their own reasons for volunteering their time, and on the surface sure it may look selfless. But underneath, I know a lot of people who do it merely for the sake of buffing their application, or resume, or to get some honor or award. Even to a lesser degree, the simple self-satisfaction of volunteering can be construed to serving your own means. After all, theoretically if I feel good about how I am volunteering for the Red Cross, then I am still a little selfish in a way. I'm doing something that makes me feel good and it just happens to serve other people. Some would regard those who say "I like to help people" as altruistic, but maybe the reality is they're just helping themselves.

I think in the end, real altruism is something where you are not thanked, and you don't think twice about it, and it's something where you really helped someone. In my lifetime, I've had a few realizations where I was startled by the fact that I was "altruistic." One of these was over the summer during my SMEP program. A friend of mine at school needed a ride to Kroger's for groceries, and it was out of my way and all but that didn't bother me. I gave him a lift and literally did not think twice about it at all. At the end of the summer, he wanted to get a picture with me and I'm smiling with him and all and he totally tells me, out of the blue, how grateful he was for that ride to Kroger's. And I go, "huH? OH. haha."

Anyway, Shredder, sometimes something as simple and stupid as that is all it takes, man. You don't have to be the Gold Star Volunteer of the Year, with mission journeys to Africa and Ecuador. It's not what you do, it's that you do it, and I'm sure there have been times in your life, and you probably did not even realize it, where you were the guy who helped someone out. Even if it means showing your peers how to solve that differential equation, or giving a buck to a thirsty friend for a soda-pop.

And yes, I did just use the word "soda-pop"

I agree with these sentiments 100%.

 

[DrBowtie]

...This is… historically inaccurate. BTW slaves built this country but that's a different issue. Maybe it's cause I'm black, but I don't idealize the mindsets of our for-fathers and I don't think this should have anything to do with medicine today. Different times call for different lines of thinking.

I find that laughable. Sorry.

 

[PreMedMommy]

What is so wrong about wanting to be a doctor for reasons other than altruism? Helping people is on my "why I want to be a doctor" list, but it's at the bottom. Just because I don't want to go save the world and make it a better place won't make me any less compassionate and empathetic, but I don't think I'd invest my entire life in it for free. But because I am not an adcom, and schools do have the option to set what ever criteria they chose, why is it so terrible to discuss topics such as altruism in a more thorough and enthusiastic manner than you really feel. Because of human nature, I think it is what most doctors and med students at some point in their life have had to do. If your worried about being a hypocrite, just remember, at some point in every person's life, they are a hypocrite. Just the severity of hypocrisy differs, and in my opinion, this is a minor deviation from myself in the grand scheme of things. If it's that big of a problem, give up on getting into med school, of fess up and say what your really in the business for.

 

[CTSballer11]

Originally Posted by Tigerstang
Basically, I am saying compassion is a necessary element to a physician, in certain fields (admittedly a pathologist or even a surgeon need not be that compassionate, as their patient contact is pretty minimal).

You must not know much about surgeons.

 

[sKorpia]

Two comments.

On compassion and "scared straight" docs:

Compassion is a feeling. For the purpose of this specific medical context, it reflects that fact that you have the ability to recognize your patient as another living, breathing human being who has to deal with the joys and troubles of this world just the same as you do. Compassion allows doctors to NOT write off their patients as utterly worthless or complete wastes of time/space. [Notice the extreme wording.]

How you express your compassion is a different matter. For some patients, compassion is best expressed to them in the form of guidance, hand-holding, reassurance. That's because it's what these particular patients need in order to ensure, to the best of anyone's ability, a successful outcome. For some patients, compassion would best be demonstrated through what have been termed "scared straight" tactics. These people need someone to bully them, to show them "tough love" and not let them get away with the tricks they try to pull, all still for the ultimate goal of getting a successful outcome. Regardless of which method is needed for the particular situation, you're still showing compassion because you're investing your time and your effort since you realize that this person needs help.

On altruism:

I think part of why they have you define it on some secondaries is so the adcoms know that you know what it means and that you are capable of acting altruistically. I've no idea why only examples of either extreme have shown up for argument. With few exceptions, no one is altruistic all the time. Most of us are altruistic in small ways throughout our lifetimes, sometimes without really being aware of it. After all, that's part of the point, isn't it? You don't care so much about personal gain so you don't keep tabs on whether or not you've been repaid (monetarily, verbally, in favors, etc). As another poster pointed out, it may take an unexpected thank you before the act of altruism is even realized.

Acts of altruism are rooted in the feeling of compassion. And compassion is needed for at least part of any doctor's medical career. There's no getting around the third year, fourth year, or residency. Regardless of where an individual's professional path ends up, there will still have been patient contact and care along the way. Without compassion, it would be too easy to lose respect for the patient as a fellow human being, an inevitable temptation when patients are problematic. [Isn't it so much easier to reduce problematic people to an insult?]

From a financial viewpoint, the third and fourth years present a problem. Your patients are not paying you; in fact, you are paying for the ability to help treat them and to learn from them. And you're still expected to act in a professional manner, despite the fact that they are not monetarily compensating you for your time. What gets an almost-doc through that with not only professionalism but also glowing reports/feedback?

Mini-comments:

I'm guessing part of what makes Shredder's posts upsetting to some is that his main repeated reason for becoming a doctor is money. I don't recall any statements of his in this thread which detail another reason. It gives off the impression that he would just see his patients as cash trees, accurate or inaccurate as that may be. If the impression is inaccurate, then Shredder needs to change that. If the impression is accurate . . . well, there have been people in the past who regretted going into medicine solely for the money since it didn't make up for all the crap they had to go through or currently have to deal with.

I partially disagree about not needing a burning desire. I think you need a desire to do your job; it just doesn't have to be burning. I completed an internship last Friday where I hated my job and the work environment was uncomfortable for me. I was dragging my feet getting in every day and utterly unenthusiastic for the measly 7 hours per day I was there. As a result, I know I could never pursue a career as a scientist. I hate the lab and science doesn't interest me enough. However, before this experience, a career as a scientist was still an option because, even though I had a similar job whose duties I could barely tolerate, I was working in an environment that allowed me to barely tolerate the work. Without a desirable work environment or desirable work itself (having both is the ideal), life is, from first-hand experience, miserable and can approach depressing.

 

[CTSballer11]

Two comments.

On compassion and "scared straight" docs:

Compassion is a feeling. For the purpose of this specific medical context, it reflects that fact that you have the ability to recognize your patient as another living, breathing human being who has to deal with the joys and troubles of this world just the same as you do. Compassion allows doctors to NOT write off their patients as utterly worthless or complete wastes of time/space. [Notice the extreme wording.]

How you express your compassion is a different matter. For some patients, compassion is best expressed to them in the form of guidance, hand-holding, reassurance. That's because it's what these particular patients need in order to ensure, to the best of anyone's ability, a successful outcome. For some patients, compassion would best be demonstrated through what have been termed "scared straight" tactics. These people need someone to bully them, to show them "tough love" and not let them get away with the tricks they try to pull, all still for the ultimate goal of getting a successful outcome. Regardless of which method is needed for the particular situation, you're still showing compassion because you're investing your time and your effort since you realize that this person needs help.

On altruism:

I think part of why they have you define it on some secondaries is so the adcoms know that you know what it means and that you are capable of acting altruistically. I've no idea why only examples of either extreme have shown up for argument. With few exceptions, no one is altruistic all the time. Most of us are altruistic in small ways throughout our lifetimes, sometimes without really being aware of it. After all, that's part of the point, isn't it? You don't care so much about personal gain so you don't keep tabs on whether or not you've been repaid (monetarily, verbally, in favors, etc). As another poster pointed out, it may take an unexpected thank you before the act of altruism is even realized.

Acts of altruism are rooted in the feeling of compassion. And compassion is needed for at least part of any doctor's medical career. There's no getting around the third year, fourth year, or residency. Regardless of where an individual's professional path ends up, there will still have been patient contact and care along the way. Without compassion, it would be too easy to lose respect for the patient as a fellow human being, an inevitable temptation when patients are problematic. [Isn't it so much easier to reduce problematic people to an insult?]

From a financial viewpoint, the third and fourth years present a problem. Your patients are not paying you; in fact, you are paying for the ability to help treat them and to learn from them. And you're still expected to act in a professional manner, despite the fact that they are not monetarily compensating you for your time. What gets an almost-doc through that with not only professionalism but also glowing reports/feedback?

Mini-comments:

I'm guessing part of what makes Shredder's posts upsetting to some is that his main repeated reason for becoming a doctor is money. I don't recall any statements of his in this thread which detail another reason. It gives off the impression that he would just see his patients as cash trees, accurate or inaccurate as that may be. If the impression is inaccurate, then Shredder needs to change that. If the impression is accurate . . . well, there have been people in the past who regretted going into medicine solely for the money since it didn't make up for all the crap they had to go through or currently have to deal with.

I partially disagree about not needing a burning desire. I think you need a desire to do your job; it just doesn't have to be burning. I completed an internship last Friday where I hated my job and the work environment was uncomfortable for me. I was dragging my feet getting in every day and utterly unenthusiastic for the measly 7 hours per day I was there. As a result, I know I could never pursue a career as a scientist. I hate the lab and science doesn't interest me enough. However, before this experience, a career as a scientist was still an option because, even though I had a similar job whose duties I could barely tolerate, I was working in an environment that allowed me to barely tolerate the work. Without a desirable work environment or desirable work itself (having both is the ideal), life is, from first-hand experience, miserable and can approach depressing.

Could not have said it better myself. Nice work.

 

[gujuDoc]

Originally Posted by Tigerstang
Basically, I am saying compassion is a necessary element to a physician, in certain fields (admittedly a pathologist or even a surgeon need not be that compassionate, as their patient contact is pretty minimal).

You must not know much about surgeons.

Exactly. Surgeons are actually in the same boat as normal IM doctors or what not. They are put in a position, where they have to constantly deal with both patients and their families. And believe me when you are that surgeon who finds out that your patient has cancer, or that you couldn't stop your patient's internal bleeding, or that you couldn't save your patient from that emergency trauma injury induced procedure, it is tough. I volunteer in the surgical waiting room at the VA, and see the surgeons talking to the patients. When some of them have had to inform the families of things such as fatal diseases being detected, or things of that nature, it has been tough. You want to believe you can do something to save every patient, but the truth is that just isn't possible. And when something happens, you are going to have to learn how to show some compassion when talking to patients and/or patient families.

Also, compassion does not equal altruism. Let us not confuse the two terms. There are many many many compassionate doctors, but very few that are truly altruistic.

Also, I agree with much of what Tigress said and with the post that Megboo posted (the one which is quoted by tigress a few posts above).

But I'll get back to expanding later.

 

[DrBowtie]

Also, compassion does not equal altruism. Let us not confuse the two terms. There are many many many compassionate doctors, but very few that are truly altruistic.

I 100% agree. People are confusing the two.

 

[CTSballer11]

Exactly. Surgeons are actually in the same boat if not worse position then normal IM doctors or what not, because they are put in the position where one minor thing goes wrong and the person could be dead on the spot. They are put in a position, where they have to constantly deal with both patients and their families. And believe me when you are that surgeon who finds out that your patient has cancer, or that you couldn't stop your patient's internal bleeding, or that you couldn't save your patient from that emergency trauma injury induced procedure, it is tough. I volunteer in the surgical waiting room at the VA, and see the surgeons talking to the patients. When some of them have had to inform the families of things such as fatal diseases being detected, or things of that nature, it has been tough. You want to believe you can do something to save every patient, but the truth is that just isn't possible. And when something happens, you are going to have to learn how to show some compassion when talking to patients and/or patient families.

Also, compassion does not equal altruism. Let us not confuse the two terms. There are many many many compassionate doctors, but very few that are truly altruistic.

Also, I agree with much of what Tigress said and with the post that Megboo posted (the one which is quoted by tigress a few posts above).

But I'll get back to expanding later.

Exactly. I shadowed a cardiac surgeon and these are some dilemmas that all surgeon's face. In fact, if you do not show compassion to a patient that you could not "fix" and things go downhill, you will most likely have a big fat lawsuit waiting for you.

 

[BaylorGuy]

I'm still agreeing with BrettBachelor and Shredder more than others. I believe it is inherent that anyone who wants to practice medicine is compassionate. Anyone who is willing to give up an extra 8-10 years of their life (med school and residency...i didn't include trying to establish yourself afterwards) to help people has got to have compassion. HOWEVER, they do get some perks for doing so (status, money, cars, hot chicks, money, etc.. 🙂 🙂 hahah) and they dont necessarily have to sacrifice the rest of their lives to do it. Someone can callously do their job, get paid, go home...or as Sean Connery in The Rock said "Winners get to go home and **** the prom queen."

What they are trying to get at (i hope i'm right), is that compassion, altruism, saving the world, etc. should not be an intergral part of the admissions process. It should not hold as much weight as your GPA or MCAT. HOWEVER, if you do happen to have an awesome GPA and MCAT, it would be a plus to your app if you did help do some volunteer work here or there. I think the basis of your success in med school is your GPA and MCAT, volunteer and EC's are supplemetal to that....not vice versa

 

[gujuDoc]

I would like to point out one more thing, if peopole truly want to go into medicine solely for the helping people reason, then I should be the first to say that there are other ways in which a person could help people. I.E. nursing, other health professions, teaching, etc. etc. etc.

If you think naively, you'll be sorely disappointed in medical school. Med school is tough, and the bureaucracy involved in medicine is even worse at times. The same arguments that can go into not going into medicine solely for money making go into why one shouldn't do it solely for saving the world sort of ideals.

People should truly examine medicine as much as it lets them through the workplace, hopsital volunteering, etc and try to talk to multiple doctors and residents and med students about what its like before making any rash decisions.

Also, in regards to Shredder, he's already acknowledged that it isn't his MD solely that he sees himself earning money through, but through creating a pharmaceutical business and getting involved in drug distribution etc.

You'd be surprised, how much physicians could truly make if they had good handling on business aspects and invested some money into other outside pursuits.

I posted this a long time back, but one of the wealthiest doctors I know is worth over half a billion dollars because he got a ton of other family members who also were MDs to get involved in developing HMO companies. They sold one of their companies for 600 million dollars and started another one. So depending on how you play your cards, and how hard you work, there is always a potential to move up.

However, that said, the same doc who I described above, is not selfish in any way. He is quite compassionate, as so is his wife (both are MDs, cardiologist and pediatrician respectively). They both donate millions and millions of dollars a year to USF for research, helped cofound a Charter Elementary school that is for underprivledged children, develop a school in India or S. Africa, and a hospital in Africa or India. I know they built a hospital in one of the two places, and a school in the other of the two countries. But I don't recall which was which. So he wa a philanthropist at heart.

I think it is possible to have both compassion and make a lot of money if you really have what it takes. But I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought that there was only one right reason to go into medicine. i.e. not everyone goes out to save the world so much as they go to be in a job they love, where they can be doing something that interests them, with the satisifaction of interacting with others being icing on the cake rather then the sole reason.

 

[tigress]

Also, compassion does not equal altruism. Let us not confuse the two terms. There are many many many compassionate doctors, but very few that are truly altruistic.

thank you! 👍

 

[sKorpia]

To CTS: Thanks.

I 100% agree. People are confusing the two.

Then why not define them? I verged on it briefly in my previous post, but not very blatantly and then switched gears. For me, compassion is more general than altruism and a greater number of actions can be classified under it. You can act compassionately and still expect some form of payback (in the case of patients, their compliance and/or money). But altruism needs a more specific form of action, particularly the "not expecting any sort of (positive, personal) reward to result from it" aspect.

I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote the altruism question was actually interested in whether or not the applicant is outwardly aware. At its basis, the question wants to discover if the applicant knows of or considers the needs of others and is willing to help out in a larger community setting. If this is the case, the word choice is incredibly poor.

 

[Shredder]

good remarks as usual guju. HMO guy yeah i remember when you mentioned that, well there you go he is a prime example of goodness.

but guys i could make money through waste management or selling toys. to me it would be more meaningful and interesting to amass a billion via medicine, and the healthcare industry should be happy that people like me exist.

 

[Shredder]

To CTS: Thanks.



Then why not define them? I verged on it briefly in my previous post, but not very blatantly and then switched gears. For me, compassion is more general than altruism and a greater number of actions can be classified under it. You can act compassionately and still expect some form of payback (in the case of patients, their compliance and/or money). But altruism needs a more specific form of action, particularly the "not expecting any sort of (positive, personal) reward to result from it" aspect.

I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote the altruism question was actually interested in whether or not the applicant is outwardly aware. At its basis, the question wants to discover if the applicant knows of or considers the needs of others and is willing to help out in a larger community setting. If this is the case, the word choice is incredibly poor.

i dont mean to be a smartass, but hey why not define them
compassion--Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.
altruism--Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

 

[tigress]

See, now we've turned the argument over to those of us who think that the admissions process SHOULDN'T focus so much on compassion and/or altruism. There are plenty of us who feel this way, and of course we all have slight variations on this theme in terms of how we express it or what we really believe medicine requires. It's nice to see a bunch of people discuss the issue intelligently, and it's wonderful to see so many articulate arguments.

guju, this is exactly why I am going into medicine: "they go to be in a job they love, where they can be doing something that interests them, with the satisifaction of interacting with others being icing on the cake rather then the sole reason."

and BaylorGuy, I totally agree with your post (except maybe the part about callously doing your job and then ****ing the prom queen )

 

[sKorpia]

Also, in regards to Shredder, he's already acknowledged that it isn't his MD solely that he sees himself earning money through, but through creating a pharmaceutical business and getting involved in drug distribution etc.

In this thread? I don't come and post here very often so, as stated previously, I can only go by what I saw in this thread.

i dont mean to be a smartass

So . . . I'm not sure how to take this then. Are you being a smartass?

Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but I could never write my papers based on them. Sometimes people need to step back and define terms and their nuances for themselves.

On accepting med students based on grades and test scores alone, from the behavior I've witnessed and heard of while here in Hong Kong among 4th year med students, I would not wish it. I feel very sorry for those people who will eventually be under their care.

 

[tigress]

On accepting med students based on grades and test scores alone, from the behavior I've witnessed and heard of while here in Hong Kong among 4th year med students, I would not wish it. I feel very sorry for those people who will eventually be under their care.

What about accepting students based on grades and test scores plus any additional activities? Presidents of clubs have to be able to get along with people. Any unique activity sheds light on the personality of the applicant. Overall, there should be some indication that the applicant is able to work with others, and clinical experience is important as proof that they know to a certain degree what they're getting into. So volunteering, shadowing, or work experience in a medical setting; but all should be treated equally. And if you do happen to have tons of volunteer experience, excellent! That shows something about you as a person. But if you don't have any, or perhaps very little and not even medically related, that should not reflect badly on you.

 

[Shredder]

In this thread? I don't come and post here very often so, as stated previously, I can only go by what I saw in this thread.

So . . . I'm not sure how to take this then. Are you being a smartass?

Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but I could never write my papers based on them. Sometimes people need to step back and define terms and their nuances for themselves.

On accepting med students based on grades and test scores alone, from the behavior I've witnessed and heard of while here in Hong Kong among 4th year med students, I would not wish it. I feel very sorry for those people who will eventually be under their care.

i usually make sure to clarify regularly that i dont see medical practice as my primary source of income. i may not even practice, docs arent required to. 6 figs just isnt enough, so if interviewers decide to grill me on that i will tell them "please".

but about the dictionary thing, well i think its important to turn to the dictionary now and then when there are disputes over definitions, bc when ppl start defining things as they want to there is no telling how distorted they can progressively get. no smartassdom, since you mentioned definitions i immediately ran to dictionary.com. actually on the ohio state secondary where it told me to define altruism, honestly i pasted from dictionary.com. i didnt see any need to put my own twist on it, they asked and i answered. along with elaboration of course.

 

[Shredder]

What about accepting students based on grades and test scores plus any additional activities? Presidents of clubs have to be able to get along with people. Any unique activity sheds light on the personality of the applicant. Overall, there should be some indication that the applicant is able to work with others, and clinical experience is important as proof that they know to a certain degree what they're getting into. So volunteering, shadowing, or work experience in a medical setting; but all should be treated equally. And if you do happen to have tons of volunteer experience, excellent! That shows something about you as a person. But if you don't have any, or perhaps very little and not even medically related, that should not reflect badly on you.

yeah, the altruism bit is getting out of hand. i dont know if its progressing, or when there will be an impetus for change. but i dont like what its doing to premeds, its making me hate most of them. when i should in fact be reveling with them in our common love for med. as the situation now stands, i dont think that anybody would dispute that if you have 0 altruism on your app then you will suffer.

 

[BaylorGuy]

and BaylorGuy, I totally agree with your post (except maybe the part about callously doing your job and then ****ing the prom queen )

Hey, Sean Connery said that remember?? Besides, he was James Bond, so you can put 2 and 2 together... 😀 😀

 

[gujuDoc]

In this thread? I don't come and post here very often so, as stated previously, I can only go by what I saw in this thread.



So . . . I'm not sure how to take this then. Are you being a smartass?

Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but I could never write my papers based on them. Sometimes people need to step back and define terms and their nuances for themselves.

On accepting med students based on grades and test scores alone, from the behavior I've witnessed and heard of while here in Hong Kong among 4th year med students, I would not wish it. I feel very sorry for those people who will eventually be under their care.

Just to clarify, I wasn't directing my comments towards you personally when I mentioned what Shredder said about his future goals. So hope you didn't take it personally.

I don't think a person should get in based on test scores only. However, I don't think it should be forced down our throat that we should fit this personal cookie cutter ideal of having a, b, and c.

In other words, I think that we should take into consideration ECs, but with more emphasis on pursuing things we rather pursue.

I.e. taking Shredder as an example, he obviously does have clinical exposure if you look at his mdapps in his sig. He also has other things he's done. however, he has not volunteered per say. Should he be punished because he chose to take activity in other endeavors rather then sit in a hospital transporting patients, a waiting room getting patient info for families, or feeding the homeless??? If he can show that he has a sense of what he's getting into by pursuit of other routes to clinical exposure while pursuing his other outside interests, then I don't think there will be a huge problem. If he can become a competent doctor who gets the job done, I don't think it should matter that he didn't volunteer as opposed to the person that volunteered x amt of hours. Again, I'm just using Shredder as an example of what I'm trying to convey, not necessarily using his name because we were talking about him. Its just an easier example to come up with to get my point across.

I should also like to say that another problem arises with volunteering. Unless you get a really awesome position like patient translator, making up beds at a clinic and doing things that normally would be assigned to employees, getting to learn some clinical skills that again would normally be taught to paid staff only, etc, then volunteering will be worth it. However, many times people who get in volunteering positions don't really do much. Where I volunteer it seems like there are days when it goes so slowly because all I get to do is sit in a waiting room, until someone asks on the status of their patient. When I actually get to go back there and get info, it can be ok. But otherwise, it seems like there is not much activity. This sort of stuff is the same thing that has happened at two of the neighboring hospitals where friends volunteer. This is part of my issue with volunteering, is that you get real limited exposure to the field and often don't get to do much to make yourself feel busy. In that same time, you could be doing something more productive elsewhere. However, there are also good volunteer positions that can be fun like reading to children in the waiting rooms at these clinics downtown too. Either way, I think the bottom line is that while volunteering can be good, it is better to let people find their own ways of exploring medicine and outside opportunities then to force them to live under this cookie cutter premed ideal.

 

[studentstudent]

nobody is a mother teresa. even she wasn't. she once admonished physicians for giving abortions to women who were brutally raped during the war when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. She never went to the women and told them to their faces that they shouldn't have abortions, because she would have been compassionate to their plight and to how these children would have been abondoned or killed (not necessarily by the mother) if they were born, and maybe changed her mind. She wanted the physicians to withdraw their health care services from these women, most of whom had never seen a doctor. Nobody's a "mother teresa" all the time, but one should have compassion towards one's patients, because otherwise patients wouldn't take the medication you told them to, and then where would the pharmaceutical industry be? And those reps wouldn't be giving you free cool stuff anymore. (Before I get hate mail, I'd like to mention this last part i just wrote is sarcastic, and to finish it all off, i'll quote Joey from Friends (i know he's no Ayn Rand) "All good deeds are selfish")

ps - according to definitions of compassion and altruism, she didn't always have it, but she's on her way to sainthood, which means u just need enough to not be tarred and feathered or put on a stake...

 

[dopaminophile]

"But tell me, this physician of whom you were just speaking, is he a moneymaker, an earner of fees, or a healer of the sick?"

-Plato, The Republic

 

[monu1234]

I find that laughable. Sorry.

the persons qoute about slaves building the country isn't totally out of line. America's original domestic economy was mainly farming in the south (which obviously relied heavily on slavery, and then on jim crow laws) and a large part of the north's economy consisted of milltowns which was dependent on Southern cotton, which they made into finished goods, and then sold.

I'm not black, but I do agree with the dude's statement that our forefather overly glorified for how great this country turned out. I think the thing that made america great was that it was such a freaking furtile land and it had slavery to provide practically free labor.

btw, Brett, you calling some's thoughts laughable is pretty freakin arrogant.

 

[gujuDoc]

the persons qoute about slaves building the country isn't totally out of line. America's original domestic economy was mainly farming in the south (which obviously relied heavily on slavery, and then on jim crow laws) and a large part of the north's economy consisted of milltowns which was dependent on Southern cotton, which they made into finished goods, and then sold.

I'm not black, but I do agree with the dude's statement that our forefather overly glorified for how great this country turned out. I think the thing that made america great was that it was such a freaking furtile land and it had slavery to provide practically free labor.

btw, Brett, you calling some's thoughts laughable is pretty freakin arrogant.

Good points brought up. However, may I make a polite request to not turn this into a race discussion and slavery discussion??? I'd rather not go there cuz it will open up another can of worms that we don't want to get into.

 

[dopaminophile]

Altruism in medicine can most clearly manifest itself as service to the poor and against poverty. Nobody is saying that you have to treat everybody for free or that you have to give yourself over to free clinics. You shouldn't have to be Paul Farmer or Dan Murphy to get into medical school. This doesn't even mean that straight charity is altruistic. What I am saying, however, is that preferentially treating those who disease affects most is the natural consequence of the "compassion" that everyone seems to agree is a desirable quality in a future physician. That preferential option for the poor is altruism in medicine and is a critically important trait in future physicians--much moreso than an MCAT or GPA. It's not naive and I hope to hell it won't fade as I work my way through medical training. By virtue of us having this discussion, adcom members haven't lost that sense of duty either. Below is an eloquent quote from Paul Farmer's Pathologies of Power regarding exactly why altruism is important in medicine.

"The insight is, in a sense, an epidemiological one: most often, diseases themselves make a preferential option for the poor. Every careful survey, across boundaries of time and space, shows us that the poor are sicker than the nonpoor. They're at increased risk of dying prematurely, whether from increased exposure to pathogens (including pathogenic situations) or from decreased access to services--or, as is most often the case, from both of these 'risk factors' working together. Given this indisputable association, medicine has a clear--if not always observed--mandate to devote itself to populations struggling against poverty."

Altruism should at least be some part of every successful applicant's profile.

 

[monu1234]

Good points brought up. However, may I make a polite request to not turn this into a race discussion and slavery discussion??? I'd rather not go there cuz it will open up another can of worms that we don't want to get into.

agreed, sorry, i just get riled up

 

[monu1234]

Originally Posted by surgeonguy22
"And yes I agree with you 100%. America was founded on capitalism, and socially liberal Supreme Court decisions have turned the US into a country of p$%$$$ (synonym for vaginas). Luckily Bush gets to appoint 3 new members, and Roberts was a good start."


dude, the depths of your wrongness are amazing. bush will get to appoint 2 max, who are already conservatives and that 2 includes roberts. furthermore, in your response the liberal supreme court, democrats have only appointed 3 of 9 judges. the other 6 were appointed by REPUBLICANS.... surgeonguy, you're shortbus special and everything else people called you

 

[dilated]

Altruism in medicine can most clearly manifest itself as service to the poor and against poverty. Nobody is saying that you have to treat everybody for free or that you have to give yourself over to free clinics. You shouldn't have to be Paul Farmer or Dan Murphy to get into medical school. This doesn't even mean that straight charity is altruistic. What I am saying, however, is that preferentially treating those who disease affects most is the natural consequence of the "compassion" that everyone seems to agree is a desirable quality in a future physician.

Altruism should at least be some part of every successful applicant's profile.

Yes, but you are taking as given that applicants to medical school are obligated to share the same values as the adcoms. I have no a priori obligation whatsoever to accept altruism as a necessary characteristic of a doctor just because the adcom says it's good. Nor do adcoms have any intrinsic moral right to judge who is worthy to be a doctor and who is not: they have the power, yes, but if they were to say tomorrow that nobody who is of race X may become a doctor, I would in no way accept that as being a valid judgment simply because it came from an adcom.

At the end of the day I will make my own judgment on whether I will make a good physician because I know the job and I know myself. If adcoms wish to set arbitrary hurdles in a futile attempt to "shape" the profession, they can expect exactly what they have gotten: row upon row of applicants who regurgitate what they know they must say about altruism. The funny part is that the process will then only weed out those who want to be honest, like Shredder. Oops.

 

[tigress]

Altruism in medicine can most clearly manifest itself as service to the poor and against poverty. Nobody is saying that you have to treat everybody for free or that you have to give yourself over to free clinics. You shouldn't have to be Paul Farmer or Dan Murphy to get into medical school. This doesn't even mean that straight charity is altruistic. What I am saying, however, is that preferentially treating those who disease affects most is the natural consequence of the "compassion" that everyone seems to agree is a desirable quality in a future physician. That preferential option for the poor is altruism in medicine and is a critically important trait in future physicians--much moreso than an MCAT or GPA. It's not naive and I hope to hell it won't fade as I work my way through medical training. By virtue of us having this discussion, adcom members haven't lost that sense of duty either. Below is an eloquent quote from Paul Farmer's Pathologies of Power regarding exactly why altruism is important in medicine.

"The insight is, in a sense, an epidemiological one: most often, diseases themselves make a preferential option for the poor. Every careful survey, across boundaries of time and space, shows us that the poor are sicker than the nonpoor. They're at increased risk of dying prematurely, whether from increased exposure to pathogens (including pathogenic situations) or from decreased access to services--or, as is most often the case, from both of these 'risk factors' working together. Given this indisputable association, medicine has a clear--if not always observed--mandate to devote itself to populations struggling against poverty."

Altruism should at least be some part of every successful applicant's profile.

I see what you (and Paul Farmer) are saying, but not everybody can devote their time to the poor. I don't even think everybody can devote some of their time to the poor. After all, if healthcare truly is a right, which seems to be the thought of Paul Farmer, certainly, and many others, then everybody, including the rich and middle class, deserve access. Of course more physicians should devote themselves to serving underserved populations. But perhaps not everybody is cut out for that. Some people obviously have to devote themselves to the better-off members of society.

Personally, I would love to work in an underserved, rural area. For rather complicated reasons this will probably never work out for me. I probably won't have the opportunity in the foreseeable future to actually devote myself to an undeserved population. But even somebody who, unlike me, doesn't WANT to devote himself to this work isn't necessarily lacking in compassion or even altruism. Each person has to find his own path, and what works for him. So I don't think that the "preferential option for the poor" (a phrase Paul Farmer is obsessed with) is necessarily a critical trait in future physicians. In SOME future physicians, yes, but not in all.

Sort of on a side note, do you really think that Paul Farmer is altruistic? I think he's extremely compassionate, and I think he has elements of altruism, perhaps as much as any person can have. But at the same time, I get the feeling that he's somewhat arrogant, and he appreciates being world-famous. At some point I mentioned to my mother that I found him slightly arrogant, and my mother's response was, "well, of course, doesn't he have to be?" Meaning that only a somewhat arrogant person would truly believe he could single-handedly change the world. In that way, this type of arrogance can be wonderful. Don't get me wrong; I'm totally in awe of Farmer, of what he's done in Haiti and elsewhere, of his devotion to his work, of his intelligence and ability to get things done, etc. But he might be the closest example I can think of to a "selfless" human being alive today, and I certainly don't think he's totally selfless. Just to bolster my assertion that no person can truly fit the strict definition of "altruistic." Most of us have elements of altruism, or act altruistic at times, but I doubt a person can truly be totally altruistic. There is almost always a certain degree of selfishness involved in the things we do. Except maybe a parent defending her child, or something of that sort. And I suppose that's biologically selfish, anyway. (I mean selfish as the opposite of selfless, for want of a better word.)

 

[CTSballer11]

Originally Posted by surgeonguy22
"And yes I agree with you 100%. America was founded on capitalism, and socially liberal Supreme Court decisions have turned the US into a country of p$%$$$ (synonym for vaginas). Luckily Bush gets to appoint 3 new members, and Roberts was a good start."


dude, the depths of your wrongness are amazing. bush will get to appoint 2 max, who are already conservatives and that 2 includes roberts. furthermore, in your response the liberal supreme court, democrats have only appointed 3 of 9 judges. the other 6 were appointed by REPUBLICANS.... surgeonguy, you're shortbus special and everything else people called you

Yep. As I said earlier, he is a supreme douche bag.

 

[dopaminophile]

Sort of on a side note, do you really think that Paul Farmer is altruistic? I think he's extremely compassionate, and I think he has elements of altruism, perhaps as much as any person can have. But at the same time, I get the feeling that he's somewhat arrogant, and he appreciates being world-famous. At some point I mentioned to my mother that I found him slightly arrogant, and my mother's response was, "well, of course, doesn't he have to be?" Meaning that only a somewhat arrogant person would truly believe he could single-handedly change the world. In that way, this type of arrogance can be wonderful. Don't get me wrong; I'm totally in awe of Farmer, of what he's done in Haiti and elsewhere, of his devotion to his work, of his intelligence and ability to get things done, etc. But he might be the closest example I can think of to a "selfless" human being alive today, and I certainly don't think he's totally selfless. Just to bolster my assertion that no person can truly fit the strict definition of "altruistic." Most of us have elements of altruism, or act altruistic at times, but I doubt a person can truly be totally altruistic. There is almost always a certain degree of selfishness involved in the things we do. Except maybe a parent defending her child, or something of that sort. And I suppose that's biologically selfish, anyway. (I mean selfish as the opposite of selfless, for want of a better word.)

I think this has to be my last post, partly because I think I've said all I can think of and partly because it's getting late and my first real day of med school starts tomorrow. I'm not trying to say that someone needs to be completely self-sacrificing or entirely altruistic in the strictest definition. I do think that it's critical that service and altruistic ideals be some small part of a doctor's profile. That way, you don't need to have some doctors who only treat the rich and some who only treat the poor. You can have every doctor devoting an appropriately proportionate amount of time to service of the poor. One can be a bleeding heart type to a fault, but I maintain that giving some part of yourself to those who you try to serve is a critical quality.

I really don't buy that doctors (or premeds or med students, interns, or residents) don't have time or resources to give some reasonable amount of time to that kind of service. The associated costs are extremely low and the time is as small or large as you want to make it. Sure, MSF and similar organizations have huge requirements, but you certainly don't have to go through them. I managed to spend several months out of the past year doing that sort of work on multiple trips and I have no training, no money, and certainly didn't have time while applying to medical school. Shoot... the industry as a whole is something like 1/8 of our GNP and doctors still have astronomical incomes. If I can do it, certainly others can. And what they'll find is that they'll enjoy it! (Then, I suppose it's not altruistic in the strictest definition, eh?)

I don't know whether I take Farmer as arrogant or not. My first thought when I read what you said was "I totally agree... arrogant as hell." But on second thought, one of his overriding themes when he's talking to medical professionals is that we shouldn't be listening to him, but to the poor he's trying to serve. He tends to stand up on a pedestal and I think that's what largely makes him inaccessable to the general public, but his intentions are ultimately to give a voice to someone else and that's not terribly arrogant.

I'll give you that nobody's entirely altruistic and no act is entirely selfless, but doctors should all be a little altruistic and act to the greater benefit of others.

I think I'm repeating myself now. G'night all!

-dope-

 

[gujuDoc]

I think this has to be my last post, partly because I think I've said all I can think of and partly because it's getting late and my first real day of med school starts tomorrow. I'm not trying to say that someone needs to be completely self-sacrificing or entirely altruistic in the strictest definition. I do think that it's critical that service and altruistic ideals be some small part of a doctor's profile. That way, you don't need to have some doctors who only treat the rich and some who only treat the poor. You can have every doctor devoting an appropriately proportionate amount of time to service of the poor. One can be a bleeding heart type to a fault, but I maintain that giving some part of yourself to those who you try to serve is a critical quality.

I really don't buy that doctors (or premeds or med students, interns, or residents) don't have time or resources to give some reasonable amount of time to that kind of service. The associated costs are extremely low and the time is as small or large as you want to make it. Sure, MSF and similar organizations have huge requirements, but you certainly don't have to go through them. I managed to spend several months out of the past year doing that sort of work on multiple trips and I have no training, no money, and certainly didn't have time while applying to medical school. Shoot... the industry as a whole is something like 1/8 of our GNP and doctors still have astronomical incomes. If I can do it, certainly others can. And what they'll find is that they'll enjoy it! (Then, I suppose it's not altruistic in the strictest definition, eh?)

I don't know whether I take Farmer as arrogant or not. My first thought when I read what you said was "I totally agree... arrogant as hell." But on second thought, one of his overriding themes when he's talking to medical professionals is that we shouldn't be listening to him, but to the poor he's trying to serve. He tends to stand up on a pedestal and I think that's what largely makes him inaccessable to the general public, but his intentions are ultimately to give a voice to someone else and that's not terribly arrogant.

I'll give you that nobody's entirely altruistic and no act is entirely selfless, but doctors should all be a little altruistic and act to the greater benefit of others.

I think I'm repeating myself now. G'night all!

-dope-

G'luck with your first day of med school and thanks for the clarification on what you were trying to say. Put this way, it makes more sense what you are saying and brings up some good points. I think this actually sorta characterizes the Indian multimillionaire that I mentioned earlier.

 

[DrBowtie]

the persons qoute about slaves building the country isn't totally out of line. America's original domestic economy was mainly farming in the south (which obviously relied heavily on slavery, and then on jim crow laws) and a large part of the north's economy consisted of milltowns which was dependent on Southern cotton, which they made into finished goods, and then sold.

I'm not black, but I do agree with the dude's statement that our forefather overly glorified for how great this country turned out. I think the thing that made america great was that it was such a freaking furtile land and it had slavery to provide practically free labor.

btw, Brett, you calling some's thoughts laughable is pretty freakin arrogant.

It totally depends on what you define as creating America. I would say it was mostly the gusto of the Declaration of Independence. Sure the farming economy was ran by the blacks, I won't deny that but the greatest advancements to make modern america would be square on the shoulders of a select few. 0.01% of which are anything but white. I am not trying to turn the debate and anyone can PM me if they want to but you are glorifiying the foot soldiers of change not the brilliance behind it. Its like blaming the war on the nazi soldiers not Hitler.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I find that laughable. Sorry.

(Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand) It is true that this country was built with slave labor, I am confused as to why you find this funny. Maybe the first start of the country was with indentured servitude and the tobacco industry, but after that most of our economy was based on products that were harvested by slaves. If it wasn't important economically, why would there have been a civil war over it? Just a little American history, carry on.

 

[Shredder]

It totally depends on what you define as creating America. I would say it was mostly the gusto of the Declaration of Independence. Sure the farming economy was ran by the blacks, I won't deny that but the greatest advancements to make modern america would be square on the shoulders of a select few. 0.01% of which are anything but white. I am not trying to turn the debate and anyone can PM me if they want to but you are glorifiying the foot soldiers of change not the brilliance behind it. Its like blaming the war on the nazi soldiers not Hitler.

the slaves only helped out the southern farming economy. the northern, booming industrial revolution had nothing to do with them, and thats what built the country, not southern cotton farms. that and capitalism. every country/empire in history has had slaves, the usa isnt unique in that regard, as much as activists want to have ppl believe. the usa is unique in that we freed the slaves without them conducting their own uprisings and revolts.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

Yep, it's a dead frickin' horse. Every race has some involvement with slavery somewhere in its history.

Your oversimplification of the history of slavery is too much for me to overlook. You cannot say that the slavery practiced in the southern United States was comparable to other examples of slavery throughout history. That's an historic fact and I just wanted to clear it up for all you non-historians. An aldehyde isn't a ketone and U.S. slavery was not anything the world had seen before. I'll spare you an essay on it.

And regarding this discussion in general, there's really no shortage at all of completely uncaring doctors out there. I wouldn't worry. It's like worrying rich white people are going to suddenly become extinct or *ghasp* have to start working for minimum wage like the rest of us. I hope to god you never have a sick child like i do and get to feel what an uncaring doctor can do to you.

 

[DrBowtie]

(Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand) It is true that this country was built with slave labor, I am confused as to why you find this funny. Maybe the first start of the country was with indentured servitude and the tobacco industry, but after that most of our economy was based on products that were harvested by slaves. If it wasn't important economically, why would there have been a civil war over it? Just a little American history, carry on.

Or you could respond to my real point. Why are you claiming the unskilled labor built america, THEY NEEDED DIRECTIONS in order to make America great hence why it is the leaders that are remembered.

 

[DrBowtie]

Your oversimplification of the history of slavery is too much for me to overlook. You cannot say that the slavery practiced in the southern United States was comparable to other examples of slavery throughout history. That's an historic fact and I just wanted to clear it up for all you non-historians. An aldehyde isn't a ketone and U.S. slavery was not anything the world had seen before. I'll spare you an essay on it.

And regarding this discussion in general, there's really no shortage at all of completely uncaring doctors out there. I wouldn't worry. It's like worrying rich white people are going to suddenly become extinct or *ghasp* have to start working for minimum wage like the rest of us. I hope to god you never have a sick child like i do and get to feel what an uncaring doctor can do to you.

What if you child was cured by said doctor with no compassion? (I know it is a hypothetical but...)

 

[Shredder]

What if you child was cured by said doctor with no compassion? (I know it is a hypothetical but...)

yeah this is the real life example of the classic curing doc vs nice doc

 

[DrBowtie]

Personally, I would rather have Rainman cure me quicker than Mr. Rogers cure me slower. Sometimes in medicine time is key. The more handholding, the more time he could have been calling for a consult.

 

[45408]

but after that most of our economy was based on products that were harvested by slaves. If it wasn't important economically, why would there have been a civil war over it? Just a little American history, carry on.

You answered it yourself. It mattered to the South, not the North. That's why the South wanted it, but the North wanted to stamp it out. Clearly, the North contained the economic muscle of the nation, so the country was not "built by slaves." They had a role, yes, but so did everyone else.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

You answered it yourself. It mattered to the South, not the North. That's why the South wanted it, but the North wanted to stamp it out. Clearly, the North contained the economic muscle of the nation, so the country was not "built by slaves." They had a role, yes, but so did everyone else.

This is like listening to a bunch of historians sit around discussing biochemistry.

White people in the North for the most part did NOT want rid of slavery. They were as racist as the South and more importantly, feared Black labor coming North taking jobs. Consider the Draft riots in NYC at the time, the prominence of segregation in the North for amny years following the Civil War, etc. etc. If anything, they favored ending slavery and shipping all the slaves back to Africa. They certainly didn't want them coming North. Lincoln himself favored this. He was no abolititionist. As dedicated as the abolitionists were, they had nothing to do with the Civil War. It wasn't meant to end slavery. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a political/tactical move.

Now, as for this assertion that the US was not built on slavery since the North was the muscle of the nation. In the inductrial period, yes, the North was the economic muscle but 1) the industrial period was preceded by agrarian society and at this time the South was of course the muscle 2) economically, it was exports from the South that allowed this country to come into existence in the critical first 100 years and 3) it was the exploited labor of slavery, indentured servitude and free labor that built and maintains this nation. There's no need to create a hierarchy. America has a big problem today, though, in not owning up to the truth about slavery and racism in this country. The extent that White America (yes, even us poor White people; i grew up below the poverty line and I, like ALL white people, still benefit from racism) has benefited economically and otherwise from racism is HUGE and there's simply no informed dialogue going on about it. There is even less about the racism and genocide of Native Americans and the way we've benefitted from that. The way History is taught in the US, the role it plays in perpetuating racism, is a sin.

Understanding racism is part of understanding the health of our patients. Racism affects health in a lot of ways. My baby is crying. Catch you all later.

 

[Will Hunting]

This is like listening to a bunch of historians sit around discussing biochemistry.

White people in the North for the most part did NOT want rid of slavery. They were as racist as the South and more importantly, feared Black labor coming North taking jobs. Consider the Draft riots in NYC at the time, the prominence of segregation in the North for amny years following the Civil War, etc. etc. If anything, they favored ending slavery and shipping all the slaves back to Africa. They certainly didn't want them coming North. Lincoln himself favored this. He was no abolititionist. As dedicated as the abolitionists were, they had nothing to do with the Civil War. It wasn't meant to end slavery. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a political/tactical move.

Now, as for this assertion that the US was not built on slavery since the North was the muscle of the nation. In the inductrial period, yes, the North was the economic muscle but 1) the industrial period was preceded by agrarian society and at this time the South was of course the muscle 2) economically, it was exports from the South that allowed this country to come into existence in the critical first 100 years and 3) it was the exploited labor of slavery, indentured servitude and free labor that built and maintains this nation. There's no need to create a hierarchy. America has a big problem today, though, in not owning up to the truth about slavery and racism in this country. The extent that White America (yes, even us poor White people; i grew up below the poverty line and I, like ALL white people, still benefit from racism) has benefited economically and otherwise from racism is HUGE and there's simply no informed dialogue going on about it. There is even less about the racism and genocide of Native Americans and the way we've benefitted from that. The way History is taught in the US, the role it plays in perpetuating racism, is a sin.

Understanding racism is part of understanding the health of our patients. Racism affects health in a lot of ways. My baby is crying. Catch you all later.

Great post. I too am amazed at how ignorant most people are with regard to history. I took every AP history class and laugh at some of the things people say. this thread blew up.