interesting lawsuit

[hakksar]

Maybe those that do organ transplants have the time to read up on everything ahead at their own pace, but what if you were working in an ER or and ICU? These doctors can't read through things at a ho-hum pace that suits them.. I guess you can argue that maybe these people should just avoid fast-paced areas of medicine, but the reality is, once they get into medical school, what's going to stop them from going into whatever specialty they want to pursue?

It's just kind of troubling because doctors make enough errors as is with the kind of time constraints they're under, it only seems like these errors would be compacted if they could read less quickly and less well with environmental distractions.

I think ER and Crit Care are also bad examples because the things that need to be accomplished in a short amount of time there are protocol based. For instance if you look at how you respond to a cardiac arrest or a heart attack or even a major trauma the initial procedures performed are set by protocol (those procedures are set by ACLS, ATLS etc). After the patient is stabilized one would have to be a quick reader to make a diagnosis and perform appropriate care. However, this is often the responsibility of the "house" doctor which is usually an Internist. Also, not all learning disabilities deal with distractions (which might be hard for an EM doc) or reading (which might be hard for a hematologist). In fact my friends on SAR are good with distractions but have difficulty reading (although not dyslexic). One works full time as a firefighter and the other is a full time RN in a critical care unit. Both are very good at their jobs and the RN was even nominated for crit care nurse of the year for her hospital. Obviously, they are good at dealing with distractions and would be a good personality for an EM doc (although neither would be a good hematologist because that involves too much reading).

Finally, what is to prevent anyone from picking the wrong specialty? You might not be good at dealing with children but you could still be a Pediatrician. You might have poor dexterity skills and you could still be a surgeon. You might not do well with shift work and you can still be an EM doc. However, there is no one that tells you that you cannot do this because you most likely would not choose a specialty that your skills are not suited for. Even if you did you would not do well in residency and would either not become board certified or even if you did would have difficulty getting LORs for a job. Medical school is not the place where this is sorted out.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gleevec]

What is already pretty funny right now are your arguments which seem to lack a solid logical foundation.

My post had no direct relation to the case the OP mentioned. I don't care if these people were totally faking their limitations in an attempt to fool AAMC. I was responding to the comments and ideas in the replies that others had written.

I don't mind you directing your very pointed response at me. I expected that many would disagree with what I said, and look forward to discussing these ideas with them... Hey, maybe I wrote an overly long and wordy post that was difficult to understand, but please at least read it over more than once before quoting me, accusing me of being hypocritical and making repeated inaccurate statements and generalization about what I've written.

You are being hypocritical. You just refuse to recognize it.

Read your post again.

Let me highlight some phrases for you, since you seem to be missing it.

"I think many here are illustrating a problem that turns out many more poor physicians than learning disabilities - arrogant pricks becoming doctors."

Yet you go on to judge everyone on this thread. Pretty arrogant huh?

Then you spend the next couple paragraphs acting as if you are the god of medicine itself.

And then the conclusion "Remember no one - not even you - knows it all."

Good to know that you can act as if you know everything, and then say that.

That's hypocrisy. If that word has too many syllables for you, look it up on www.m-w.com and you can TAKE YOUR TIME reading it too.

 

[Gleevec]

The natural question that relates to federalism is as follows:

We have some students in California, where they have less stringent criteria for disability, who want to take a NATIONAL test to enter a NATIONAL medical school.

So the question becomes, if they get special considerations because of Cali law, does that mean they are limited to that state for medical school as well?

And please, the national standard for disability is quite inclusive. These litigants are obviously on the borderline and wanted to be treated as if they have a more severe disability.

And we're talking about ADD and dyslexia here, not ******ation.

What I still dont understand is that there are a lot of "treatments" for ADD, and lot of dyslexics lead perfectly normal lives. For these people not to be included in the disability category by the AAMC, their ADD and dyslexia must be quite minor because in general you can get extra time for these things. In fact, there was an article a couple years back on doctor-shopping for ADD diagnoses for otherwise normal kids so you can get extra time on the SAT (now its commonly done to get adderall). In any case, it will be interesting to see what happens. There's only 3 weeks left as it is.

 

[willthatsall]

By the way, how would you know that your surgeon can't read? Is this a typical question a patient asks their doctor before surgery?

This question shouldn't be necessary because a person who has trouble reading shouldn't become a doctor. You should be able to assume that your health is in the hands of a qualified and capable professional. That's why they shouldn't get extra time, because I don't want to have to wonder whether my doctor is only a doctor because people made it easier for him along the way. If I die in the extra 2 or 3 minutes it takes him to read my chart, is that acceptable? WTF, this is stupid.

 

[hakksar]

This question shouldn't be necessary because a person who has trouble reading shouldn't become a doctor. You should be able to assume that your health is in the hands of a qualified and capable professional. That's why they shouldn't get extra time, because I don't want to have to wonder whether my doctor is only a doctor because people made it easier for him along the way. If I die in the extra 2 or 3 minutes it takes him to read my chart, is that acceptable? WTF, this is stupid.

By that reasoning you should not be a doctor if you have rheumatoid arthritis, do not have 20/20 vision, or any other condition that could potentially lead to a situation that could delay you from being able to perform the functions of a Physician (and since sleeping could delay your ability to perform surgeons should not sleep while on call but since they make more mistakes when they do not sleep then no one should be a surgeon). Ultimately, what matters is if they can perform their job as well as anyone else . . . if it takes them longer to read a chart but when they do read the chart they make a better decision I think they are performing at least as well if not better.

 

[willthatsall]

By that reasoning you should not be a doctor if you have rheumatoid arthritis, do not have 20/20 vision, or any other condition that could potentially lead to a situation that could delay you from being able to perform the functions of a Physician (and since sleeping could delay your ability to perform surgeons should not sleep while on call but since they make more mistakes when they do not sleep then no one should be a surgeon). Ultimately, what matters is if they can perform their job as well as anyone else . . . if it takes them longer to read a chart but when they do read the chart they make a better decision I think they are performing at least as well if not better.

I wouldn't want someone with rheumatoid arthritis operating on me. Vision is correctable.

 

[SailCrazy]

Well, it seems like we've move our argument a bit off topic, but hey I'm having fun with it too so I'll keep on...!

You are being hypocritical. You just refuse to recognize it.

Let me highlight some phrases for you, since you seem to be missing it.

"I think many here are illustrating a problem that turns out many more poor physicians than learning disabilities - arrogant pricks becoming doctors."

Yet you go on to judge everyone on this thread. Pretty arrogant huh?

Judge everyone on this thread? Hardly.

I did call out several who made some pretty glaring errors in logic (slow reader = illiterate) and some who's arrogant demeanor (if extrapolated to medical practice as every behavior demonstrated on SDN seems to be) demonstrated a "diminished capacity" that was similar (though clearly not the same) as those who they were criticizing.

I had no individual person or post in mind, and I never once mentioned any particular post or anyone by name. What is the expression? "I think you protest too much?" (Basically, if you didn't feel "guilty" you wouldn't feel such a need to argue.)

Then you spend the next couple paragraphs acting as if you are the god of medicine itself.

If you're referring to the paragraph where I suggest that perhaps others shouldn't be practicing medicine, its called sarcasm. Your "argument against me" certainly helped proved my point.

It is, or course, utterly ridiculous for me to say that someone should or should not be a physician or would or would not be a good doctor based on one specific criterion that I have determined is of the utmost importance. I had hoped that most would be able to see the analogy that it is also ridiculous to assert that a slow reader has no business in medical school, as some here did.

Then you spend the next couple paragraphs acting as if you are the god of medicine itself.

If you were instead referring to my description of a brand spanking new doctor who has quickly developed a reputation for arrogance who also diagnosed a cancer patient as a mental patient, I'll just have to plead guilty on that one.
If that is the kind of doctor you want to have (or want to be) there's nothing much more to be said about that.

And then the conclusion "Remember no one - not even you - knows it all."

Good to know that you can act as if you know everything, and then say that.

You don't have to "know everything" to call out statements that are arrogant, logically flawed or both! (And no, I don't mean you personally.)

That's hypocrisy. If that word has too many syllables for you, look it up on www.m-w.com and you can TAKE YOUR TIME reading it too.

Hey, just because you don't like what I have to say, and I'm not afraid to disagree with you or to bluntly point out the flaws in your logic, you don't have to revert to Jr. High School on us...

What do you want me to say "I'm rubber, you're glue!?!"