Is pathology a dying field

[futurePathologist]

I wanted to be pathologist for many reasons but recently I've heard it is a dying field.
Is this is a true?

My reasons :
-Quit
-no pt.
-no calls
-business?!
-technology
-less boring

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KeratinPearls]

If Pathology is a dying field who is going to read all the biopsies, FNAs, etc then?

 

[LADoc00]

Medicine itself is a dying field.

 

[icpshootyz]

I wanted to be pathologist for many reasons but recently I've heard it is a dying field.
Is this is a true?

My reasons :
-Quit
-no pt.
-no calls
-business?!
-technology
-less boring

I can't figure out what your "reasons" are referring to. Are these your reasons for going into pathology? Not going into pathology? As for it being a dying field, I doubt it. Maybe technology or less invasive diagnostic techniques could reduce the number of biopsies/resections that currently occur, but in no way will histopathology disappear as a field of medicine. My guess is the field may shrink a bit over time, but it will most definitely still exist.

And as the "Similar Threads" box shows at the bottom of the screen, pathology is hardly the only field people fret about.

 

[DRsmartypants]

I don't think pathology will die in the sense the field will die, however I do think within 10-20 years if politics cooperates, there is a slight chance that radiology will absorb pathology with the increase in molecular imaging. Anatomic pathology will always be it's own field, however clinical pathology may be absorbed. There have been some movement in recent years to create "radiopathology" as part of radiology training. Some hospitals have had programs where pathologists and radiologists work very close together to diagnose, outcomes are better, and radiologists learn a lot of pathophysiology and pathology as is, so learning some pathology wouldn't be a huge detriment to them. HOWEVER, the question is if this is going to take place, how would residency change. The idea is for diagnostic radiologists to be even more diagnostic, with a comprehensive radiopathologic report. I am not saying this is happening any time soon, but it is certainly possible. Radiologists have motivation to do this because they are fearful of IBM watson. So if they can read pathology as well on a unified system. They can diagnose a breast nodule, order a biopsy, get the results read and diagnose and stage it if need be. They gain more autonomy etc., there is a lot of motivation for radiology to overtake clinical pathology, and clinical pathologists don't really have too much defense on their side. Radiology has been losing money due to autonomy and turf wars, so absorbing pathology would bring their income up. There is a lot of patient benefit and money involved, as well as most radiologists were always interested in pathology just more so in radiology. Then if this did happen, would be interested clinical pathologists would go into radiology, and since they follow up on pathology and radiologic studies they are essentially creating a greater continuity of grade and much better impressions overall since they don't have to hedge at much since by the time the report needs to be generated they know they were right. Less lawsuits as a result. This is just an outline, I could write a paper on why radiopathology would be a great idea, the main problem would be incorporation radiology and clinical pathology into a single field without increasing training time by too much. However given the relationship between radiology and pathology would be cyclic in terms of reads and a unified system, diagnostic radiology residency may not be need to increased by more then a year if that.

 

[Mr Derp]

I don't think pathology will die in the sense the field will die, however I do think within 10-20 years if politics cooperates, there is a slight chance that radiology will absorb pathology with the increase in molecular imaging. Anatomic pathology will always be it's own field, however clinical pathology may be absorbed. There have been some movement in recent years to create "radiopathology" as part of radiology training. Some hospitals have had programs where pathologists and radiologists work very close together to diagnose, outcomes are better, and radiologists learn a lot of pathophysiology and pathology as is, so learning some pathology wouldn't be a huge detriment to them. HOWEVER, the question is if this is going to take place, how would residency change. The idea is for diagnostic radiologists to be even more diagnostic, with a comprehensive radiopathologic report. I am not saying this is happening any time soon, but it is certainly possible. Radiologists have motivation to do this because they are fearful of IBM watson. So if they can read pathology as well on a unified system. They can diagnose a breast nodule, order a biopsy, get the results read and diagnose and stage it if need be. They gain more autonomy etc., there is a lot of motivation for radiology to overtake clinical pathology, and clinical pathologists don't really have too much defense on their side. Radiology has been losing money due to autonomy and turf wars, so absorbing pathology would bring their income up. There is a lot of patient benefit and money involved, as well as most radiologists were always interested in pathology just more so in radiology. Then if this did happen, would be interested clinical pathologists would go into radiology, and since they follow up on pathology and radiologic studies they are essentially creating a greater continuity of grade and much better impressions overall since they don't have to hedge at much since by the time the report needs to be generated they know they were right. Less lawsuits as a result. This is just an outline, I could write a paper on why radiopathology would be a great idea, the main problem would be incorporation radiology and clinical pathology into a single field without increasing training time by too much. However given the relationship between radiology and pathology would be cyclic in terms of reads and a unified system, diagnostic radiology residency may not be need to increased by more then a year if that.

 

[yaah]

Every field in the world could be considered a "dying field" in some way.

 

[kchan99]

I don't think pathology will die in the sense the field will die, however I do think within 10-20 years if politics cooperates, there is a slight chance that radiology will absorb pathology with the increase in molecular imaging. Anatomic pathology will always be it's own field, however clinical pathology may be absorbed. There have been some movement in recent years to create "radiopathology" as part of radiology training. Some hospitals have had programs where pathologists and radiologists work very close together to diagnose, outcomes are better, and radiologists learn a lot of pathophysiology and pathology as is, so learning some pathology wouldn't be a huge detriment to them. HOWEVER, the question is if this is going to take place, how would residency change. The idea is for diagnostic radiologists to be even more diagnostic, with a comprehensive radiopathologic report. I am not saying this is happening any time soon, but it is certainly possible. Radiologists have motivation to do this because they are fearful of IBM watson. So if they can read pathology as well on a unified system. They can diagnose a breast nodule, order a biopsy, get the results read and diagnose and stage it if need be. They gain more autonomy etc., there is a lot of motivation for radiology to overtake clinical pathology, and clinical pathologists don't really have too much defense on their side. Radiology has been losing money due to autonomy and turf wars, so absorbing pathology would bring their income up. There is a lot of patient benefit and money involved, as well as most radiologists were always interested in pathology just more so in radiology. Then if this did happen, would be interested clinical pathologists would go into radiology, and since they follow up on pathology and radiologic studies they are essentially creating a greater continuity of grade and much better impressions overall since they don't have to hedge at much since by the time the report needs to be generated they know they were right. Less lawsuits as a result. This is just an outline, I could write a paper on why radiopathology would be a great idea, the main problem would be incorporation radiology and clinical pathology into a single field without increasing training time by too much. However given the relationship between radiology and pathology would be cyclic in terms of reads and a unified system, diagnostic radiology residency may not be need to increased by more then a year if that.

I do see a few good points, but I'm not sure about radiology and pathology combining in the near future. Looking back at the history of MRI, the ripe time would have been in the 1980s or even a bit earlier when radiology, nuclear medicine, and pathology were reportedly competing for dominance in MRI. I don't know how many radiologists are interested in the actual practice of pathology because their eyes to trained to read gray scale images rather than color. I wonder if any radiologists would like to chime in. In 2012, Thomas Wheeler, the chair of pathology at Baylor, wrote about a rad-path specialty in his blog entry entitled "Rad-Path, a New Diagnostic Specialty?"

 

[LADoc00]

Why stop at combining Radiology and pathology, why not combine everything?

Seriously, there is no plan that even remotely makes sense to combine those 2 fields as there is plenty for rads to worry about and plenty of Path you actually need to grind out on a daily basis.

There is no movement afoot to combine those 2 as what the poster is actually pointing to is the fact that nearly all Radiology residents had in the past had significant time exposure to pathology, especially gross pathology formerly through a program that was administrated by the AFIP, which has since closed.

So there may have been a reflexive attempt by Rads training programs to reproduce this lost program and nothing more.

"Motivation for Rads to take over Path" is almost comical to me, the more likely result which is already happening to some degree is rads income will slashed by huge amounts and in the future you will see more Rads boarded M.D.s working at "pain clinics", marijuana dispensaries and selling beauty products...

Things maybe crazy but they arent this crazy.

This isnt Monty Python land where specialties see their income drop and decide one day to board another field of medicine:

 

[deleted314957]

It is not a dying field. However, more work will be done by fewer pathologists. These scenarios, particularly in academics, where you have 15 pathologists and 3 PhD's and a boat load of residents and fellows dealing with 20k surgicals probably won't last. It will/is be(ing) seen first and most dramatically in the non-academic community.

 

[AZpath]

I doubt it. RVU productivity per pathologist has gone way up. It has hit the wall.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

It's not dying but it is contracting. Besides increased productivity, the number of specimens is going to plummet.

Don't vote for Trump. We don't need a wall keeping people away. We need massive population explosion to keep many of us employed.

 

[Thrombus]

It's not dying but it is contracting. Besides increased productivity, the number of specimens is going to plummet.

Don't vote for Trump. We don't need a wall keeping people away. We need massive population explosion to keep many of us employed.

Academic pathology is going to build themselves subsidized labor and they are going to make all other pathologists pay for it!

 

[Ishie1013]

I wanted to be pathologist for many reasons but recently I've heard it is a dying field.
Is this is a true?

My reasons :
-Quit
-no pt.
-no calls
-business?!
-technology
-less boring

At your stage, I don't see it being worth the risk. Find something else that interests you.

 

[futurePathologist]

At your stage, I don't see it being worth the risk. Find something else that interests you.

Like what ?

 

[gbwillner]

Like what ?

Go do what you like to do. If you go into family practice just because some anonymous poster told you not to enter the field of your choice, you may very well be regretting that decision very soon. If you love pathology and want to do it, go ahead. It's probably mostly true that the market is suboptimal, but that doesn't mean it's dead. And like the stock market, you cannot predict the future based on past events.

 

[Ishie1013]

You'd be the best person to answer that. Personally, I enjoyed most of my medical school rotations; I just happened to love pathology and was cursed with optimism. I was reassured years ago that only the "bad people" couldn't find jobs, and hey, maybe I'm one of them, but I'm in pretty decent company with a lot of people I think are good pathologists with positive communication skills who have had a lot of trouble. Even most of the ones that have since secured jobs had an incredibly rough go of it and made a number of compromises. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires a lot of reflection about the particulars of your own life, and if you have a family or plan to, that is a whole other layer of consideration. It's great to say you'll go where all the good opportunities are and do two fellowships in different locations that give you the best training. It's a lot different to drag the spouse and kids along for the ride. Debt is another factor. If you don't have it, heck, do what you want. Even the dreaded low paid instructorship will allow you to do what you love and live comfortably compared to the general population. A fellow's salary isn't even bad without debt and fellowships are rarely in short supply.

If you truly do not believe you would be happy doing *anything* other than pathology (which is a little strange, honestly), then at least go in with your eyes open, and count on nothing. If you're like "well, I love pathology, but I also really enjoy X, and the Direct Loan folks just threatened to break my cat's kneecaps", then it might be smarter to do that other thing.

I wish doing what you love were more of a reality, regardless of subject, since I'd prefer a world with more artists than middle managers. Turning down a well-paid field in a subject you *like* in medicine because it isn't the one you *love* is the height of luxury. But the internet advice goes both ways. If you shouldn't listen to people like me that are struggling, you similarly shouldn't listen to reassurances from people who are not currently trying to enter the market or haven't recently entered the market. Job experience changes everything; I'm sure established attorneys don't believe their field has a problem either. Once you're in, I'm sure it's great. I'm hoping to be in that position soon.

Go to hospitals with fellowships and talk to their path fellows (residents usually aren't looking for jobs yet and program directors often aren't getting the whole picture) and ask around. I personally have yet to see a place where a number of people aren't struggling, so go get it straight from the non-anonymous sources, do some soul searching, go from there and ask yourself if it's worth it. It may be worth it. And maybe if I secure something, I'll think it was worth it.

 

[yaah]

Everything is a dying field.

Which field of medicine is at the most significant risk the soonest? You can make an argument for many, and pathology is probably quite far down the list, probably below primary care fields, radiology, anesthesiology, and many general medicine subspecialties. You could also argue the opposite. There are so many unknowns that such an argument becomes mostly just an intellectural exercise.

As far as Ihie1013's post, that reflects some of the wishful thinking that a lot of people have. A lot of it is just youth and inexperience - "I won't have the same problems that others have had" and such. But you have to be careful to not take the other extreme. You are highly unlikely to be able to create an ideal job in an ideal location and have it materialize. But neither is anyone else in any field. But just because you don't get everything doesn't mean the sky is falling either. That is life. You have to compromise on something - some people compromise on location, some on salary. Sometimes I get the sense that a lot of people on these forums don't know anyone else outside of medicine - do you not know people working in some business who get sent to China for 4 years, then India for 5 years, and have to move their family? Do you not know lawyers taking jobs for $20,000 in the hopes it turns into something else? Life is tough. You don't necessarily get a pass from that because you paid $200000 for the prilivege of 8 years of medical education.

But the point about debt and family considerations is hugely important. If those things are going to have a significant impact on you, make certain you know what you're getting into. If all you care about is stability and living in city X, then be careful about picking any smaller field.

 

[Ishie1013]

I know a great deal of people outside medicine with a lot of student loan debt they can't discharge and no way to pay it off.

And you certainly have the ability to choose that fate for yourself.

 

[jp123ok]

Ishie, fellows looking for a job are best placed to provide a clear picture about the current job market. I therefore hope that people considering a career in pathology think carefully about what you are going through.

I am close enough to my training to know that most of the attendings on this forum who claim that "good residents have no trouble finding a job", or words to that effect, are flat out wrong. Looking for a job in the present pathology job market requires a huge amount of work and it is a horrible and depressing experience. I wish you the best of luck in your job search.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Everything is a dying field.

Which field of medicine is at the most significant risk the soonest? You can make an argument for many, and pathology is probably quite far down the list, probably below primary care fields, radiology, anesthesiology, and many general medicine subspecialties. You could also argue the opposite. There are so many unknowns that such an argument becomes mostly just an intellectural exercise.

As far as Ihie1013's post, that reflects some of the wishful thinking that a lot of people have. A lot of it is just youth and inexperience - "I won't have the same problems that others have had" and such. But you have to be careful to not take the other extreme. You are highly unlikely to be able to create an ideal job in an ideal location and have it materialize. But neither is anyone else in any field. But just because you don't get everything doesn't mean the sky is falling either. That is life. You have to compromise on something - some people compromise on location, some on salary. Sometimes I get the sense that a lot of people on these forums don't know anyone else outside of medicine - do you not know people working in some business who get sent to China for 4 years, then India for 5 years, and have to move their family? Do you not know lawyers taking jobs for $20,000 in the hopes it turns into something else? Life is tough. You don't necessarily get a pass from that because you paid $200000 for the prilivege of 8 years of medical education.

But the point about debt and family considerations is hugely important. If those things are going to have a significant impact on you, make certain you know what you're getting into. If all you care about is stability and living in city X, then be careful about picking any smaller field.

Only compare pathology to other fields of medicine.

I hate when people bring up the tough job market for lawyers or people in business.

You wouldn't be giving them the "life is tough" speech if you were looking for work in this abysmal field.

 

[Deucedano]

I think the important thing to realize when considering pathology as a specialty is that it is a relatively small field when you compare it to other areas of medicine. I did not realize this when considering entering the field. This combined with the fact that we are overtraining residents makes for a very tight job market. Yaah is completely right in that many people go into it thinking they are going to get their ideal job in their ideal location right out of residence/fellowship which is a pipe dream for a vast majority of people looking for jobs. All of the fellows who have come through my residency program found jobs. Some were lucky and found their dream jobs while others got jobs that were ok. No one is unemployed,

You have to work hard to get into medical school, through medical school and during residency/fellowship, so why do people on this board think jobs should just fall into your lap? The sense of entitlement among physicians and physicians in training is astounding. You have to work hard to get what you want. Thats life regardless of what specialty you are in. I agree with the sentiment that if you really enjoy pathology do it. Just understand that getting a job in your ideal location making a certain salary may not happen.

 

[Ishie1013]

(edited) Forget it. Yeah, do it if you love it. If you can't find a job later, it's probably because there's something wrong with you or you're entitled.

 

[gbwillner]

I think the important thing to realize when considering pathology as a specialty is that it is a relatively small field when you compare it to other areas of medicine. I did not realize this when considering entering the field. This combined with the fact that we are overtraining residents makes for a very tight job market. Yaah is completely right in that many people go into it thinking they are going to get their ideal job in their ideal location right out of residence/fellowship which is a pipe dream for a vast majority of people looking for jobs. All of the fellows who have come through my residency program found jobs. Some were lucky and found their dream jobs while others got jobs that were ok. No one is unemployed,

You have to work hard to get into medical school, through medical school and during residency/fellowship, so why do people on this board think jobs should just fall into your lap? The sense of entitlement among physicians and physicians in training is astounding. You have to work hard to get what you want. Thats life regardless of what specialty you are in. I agree with the sentiment that if you really enjoy pathology do it. Just understand that getting a job in your ideal location making a certain salary may not happen.

This is a good post. The issue, however, is that in other fields jobs DO fall in your lap. There are thousands of hospital systems in the country and all need PCPs to push the meat in the system. Many could hardly care what your credentials are, because they have 10K patients to see in any given day. IM and Peds jobs probably are plentiful in every major city in the country. Residents in those fields start fielding calls and offers in their first and second year of residency. The issue is not an issue with Path itself, as much as it is with the unbalanced work needed to be performed. Path (ok, AP) is only required when someone is suspected of getting cancer and has tissue to diagnose (or a handful of other rare things like heart transplants, hepatitis, etc.). We often compare ourselves with Rads (mostly for good reason), but think of all the other sick people that need Rads diagnostic testing outside of this specific setting. Only a few pathologists are needed in any given location. It is a very different beast. We probably have trained too many pathologists which is hurting the market even more- there are probably as many radiologists as pathologists out there. When calculating the work needed to be done (i.e., the looming shortage), there were likely implicit assumptions about how much work any one pathologist could do. In an age of automation and improved efficiency, those numbers were probably way off.
That being said, if you love pathology, and that is your priority in life, it is a good field to be in. Your compensation will be favorable compared to your other clinical colleagues, and your schedule likely far more manageable. If your priority is to hike in the mountains on the weekends in the Rockies, or to be around your family in whatever town you were reared in, then it is a bad field to be in, IMHO.

 

[Deucedano]

(edited) Forget it. Yeah, do it if you love it. If you can't find a job later, it's probably because there's something wrong with you or you're entitled.

I agree with you. Im just trying to say that you need to work hard if you want a job. Most people make no attempt to network outside of their residency program or possibly other academic centers if doing collaborative research. In a small field where >80% of jobs are by word of mouth of course people are going to have difficulty finding jobs. Those residents/fellows Ive seen who do a good job at networking usually have multiple offers. It is somewhat of a foreign and uncomfortable concept for some who go into pathology, but is necessary to get what you want. I guess what Im saying is getting a job is not all about working hard and doing a good job, you need to take initiative and put yourself out there. Dont expect someone to do it for you.

This is a good post. The issue, however, is that in other fields jobs DO fall in your lap. There are thousands of hospital systems in the country and all need PCPs to push the meat in the system. Many could hardly care what your credentials are, because they have 10K patients to see in any given day. IM and Peds jobs probably are plentiful in every major city in the country. Residents in those fields start fielding calls and offers in their first and second year of residency. The issue is not an issue with Path itself, as much as it is with the unbalanced work needed to be performed. Path (ok, AP) is only required when someone is suspected of getting cancer and has tissue to diagnose (or a handful of other rare things like heart transplants, hepatitis, etc.). We often compare ourselves with Rads (mostly for good reason), but think of all the other sick people that need Rads diagnostic testing outside of this specific setting. Only a few pathologists are needed in any given location. It is a very different beast. We probably have trained too many pathologists which is hurting the market even more- there are probably as many radiologists as pathologists out there. When calculating the work needed to be done (i.e., the looming shortage), there were likely implicit assumptions about how much work any one pathologist could do. In an age of automation and improved efficiency, those numbers were probably way off.
That being said, if you love pathology, and that is your priority in life, it is a good field to be in. Your compensation will be favorable compared to your other clinical colleagues, and your schedule likely far more manageable. If your priority is to hike in the mountains on the weekends in the Rockies, or to be around your family in whatever town you were reared in, then it is a bad field to be in, IMHO.

There is a huge need for PCPs, but the number of FP and IM physicians outnumber pathologists by 20:1, so of course there are going to be more job openings. Combine that with the fact that there is a shortage since most medical students graduates are choosing to specialize due to various reasons, but one major one is decreased reimbursements. Its just not a good comparison. Also those fields work more and pay less so it makes sense there is a glut of jobs.

I agree the calculated workload by the pathology professional organizations is an overestimate based on historical trends leading pathology leadership to endorse a "shortage" among pathologists providing justification to train more residents. As our healthcare system shifts to a quality based system, there is going to be increased scrutiny in determine what is cost effective which will likely lead to a decrease in specimens. Along with the push towards personalized or precision medicine, molecular diagnostics will become a bigger part of the picture. I don't think this field is dying, but it may be contracting and in part slowly shifting away from the traditional AP only/majority model.

 

[Ishie1013]

I agree with you. Im just trying to say that you need to work hard if you want a job. Most people make no attempt to network outside of their residency program or possibly other academic centers if doing collaborative research. In a small field where >80% of jobs are by word of mouth of course people are going to have difficulty finding jobs. Those residents/fellows Ive seen who do a good job at networking usually have multiple offers. It is somewhat of a foreign and uncomfortable concept for some who go into pathology, but is necessary to get what you want. I guess what Im saying is getting a job is not all about working hard and doing a good job, you need to take initiative and put yourself out there. Dont expect someone to do it for you.

I understand, but it also goes with the assumption that many of us aren't working hard to get a job, which I can't speak for everyone, but I'm killing myself to do so, as are the people I've known who have finally been able to stop looking or are still looking. Virtually everyone I know who started with any sort of geographic restrictions have abandoned them, except two (and these were NBA equivalents; fantastic in every way and lucky enough to have job openings hit at the right time in the right area) I've made a lot of connections that I've essentially been begging for leads (which is a terrific feeling; I feel like I should be holding out a change cup), and even the higher ups seem baffled by how much lateral movement there is right now among even the available jobs, which leads to the dreaded need for experience which shuts us out no matter how many fellowships we have. If I do get something this year, it's almost certainly going to be through connections, but even a lot of that is luck. It doesn't matter who you know if they don't know anyone hiring or the people they know who are hiring want someone with a decade of experience. This gets doubly discouraging when the inevitable stress and woe we're feeling at this time is met with questions to our legitimacy, competence, and sense of entitlement. I do not feel entitled to a job. I do; however, feel like my entire financial future is over if I'm unable to obtain one. Those are two entirely different things.

 

[Thrombus]

I recommend you go back to do another residency. We don't need any more pathologists. You will be benefiting yourself long term and the field. Sorry but I have been warning about this for a decade now.

 

[jp123ok]

I agree that pathology residents have no right to expect a guaranteed job at the end of their training. The unsuccessful attempts in the last few years by unemployed law graduates to launch lawsuits against their schools support this view from a legal standpoint. What I find interesting about pathology is that the CAP has been making misleading claims about the pathology job market for decades now. I expect that this might make them vulnerable to a lawsuit from all the pathology trainees struggling to find a job.

Perhaps some of the underemployed lawyers out there can team up with the underemployed pathologists and launch a class action lawsuit against the CAP. That might finally force the CAP to provide a more realistic assessment of the job market.

 

[yaah]

I actually haven't seen a lot of "assessments of the job market" by the CAP. WHat I have seen are attempted predictions for the future, with (I think) the assumption that the status quo is adequate (which may or may not be true). The provide data on average age of pathologists and predict retirement and future need, but I haven't seen a lot of great evidence that their predictions of future need are well thought out. The data on retirement is simply age and trend based. The issue that isn't brought up very often is whether retiring pathologists will actually need to be replaced in many cases.

I have never seen any data on the actual number of "unemployed pathologists" or underemployed (whatever that means). According to this forum it's a high number. We have occasional people posting their experiences on finding a job after fellowship, but I can't recall many who don't eventually find something. I would not focus on "unemployed pathologists" as your argument, because I suspect that the true percentage of qualified (i.e. board certified and possessing a valid medical license) pathologists that are unemployed is quite low. "Underemployed" is completely open to interpretation but is likely quite high if you define it as settling for a job or being in a job that you are looking to leave for reasons of pay, working hours, etc.

The only things that seem to pop up about the job market are the surveys of graduating residents and fellows which are not designed very well to answer the important questions.

 

[yaah]

Only compare pathology to other fields of medicine.

I hate when people bring up the tough job market for lawyers or people in business.

You wouldn't be giving them the "life is tough" speech if you were looking for work in this abysmal field.

It's just perspective. Life is tough. Don't tell me what I think or feel, and don't tell me that I don't sympathize. I have seen these forums go on for years about comparing pathology to other fields outside of medicine, about how people should go into I-banking or whatever the profession du jour is. You're right it's not a great comparison. But neither is comparing it to family medicine. I wouldn't really compare it to anything, actually. Consider it by itself. These forums have a lot of hand wringing and complaining and assumption but very little real data. I would like to see real data as much as anyone else. But in the absence of data one has to use other evidence - if you use anecdotes you have to be willing to consider anecdotes other than ones that fit your perspective. I hear anecdotes about almost every single type of job search process you can think of. This includes people who get great job offers at >75th percentile. And others where someone moves 1500 miles to work in a terrible job because there was nothing else. but I very rarely hear of one that ends in long term (>1 year) unemployment without a significant problematic factor involved.

 

[tiredof thisnonsense]

I wanted to be pathologist for many reasons but recently I've heard it is a dying field.
Is this is a true?

My reasons :
-Quit
-no pt.
-no calls
-business?!
-technology
-less boring

Well
I see a lot of non pathologists posting re pathology
Ok I have been in pathology for decades in gt=reat and not so great profint nonprofit corp places so bear with me I know what I am talking about:
Pathology is dead because:
no one learns any histology or pathology in USA med schools. I report biopsies to doctors that do not recognize the difference between a duodenum vs a stomach under the scope and therefore cannot understand anything I say but just what they want to hear, POOR PATIENTS
How do you guys think you are going to practice if you cannot understand a report of a painfully obtained biopsy uh?
No Calls? there are more calls than you can imagine: night week end and constant interruptions while the clinicians rest in their lounges at the hospital you are the punching ball of the system that gives you NO PWEr (why this is late, what ids that, you know nothing, your lab sucks etc are the friendlies you receive)
Stress is enormous: you make a mistake? IS written down for ever
Boring because one reads on the scope all day? Boring not because of that but because we run labs with rules and regulations that you have no idea of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You all thing genetics and sophisticated tests are the future? WRONG ulless teh dx is correct you are screwed. Well that is what the industry wants you to believe so you throw away morphology and correct diagnosis and trust mincing tumors in machines: IDIOTIC
the politicians the laziness of doctors the industry are the problems that killed pathology in t he uSA plus a bunch of pahtlogists that should be in an asylum with no balls no standing up for themselves.
In Europe it thrives because it is seen as the real patient advocate it is: no BULL just facts
If you want to practice pathology in the uSA you are crazy' I you think going to those stuffy know it all ivy eagues nepotistic Universities will help you you are even more cray
I hatd my life my job and my present, wish I NEVER went into this mudpit

Do gasroenteorlogy dermatology radiology and have a happy life
please express your disgust for what happened to medical care in the USA IT IS DIGSUTING the worst medical care I have seen in the western world and while you get more and more in debt the world moves on and we AMericans are just full of ourselves full of hot air.

 

[Ishie1013]

Bah, old school quote lingo broken

 

[nr-xxx]

I wanted to be pathologist for many reasons but recently I've heard it is a dying field.
Is this is a true?

My reasons :
-Quit
-no pt.
-no calls
-business?!
-technology
-less boring

In many respects pathology will not be what it used to be. the days when you could go out into the community hospital and be a respected member of the medical community, serve as the "information source, and commonly make about $400K are over with. Why? 1) outfits like Quest or Labcorp turned pathology, the med specialty into a "commodity" now a days the pathologist is an 800 number the material is shipped out to a far away lab and the most a clinician sees is a med tech in the lab. biopsy specimen's are shipped away and the results down loaded on a dedicated computer screen the next day no more "going on rounds" and stop by pathology to go over slides and cytology.2) newer technologies, with HPV tests the PAP test shall become obsolete in about 10-15 years. 3) newer molecular diagnostics. the tests now are more and more molecular that use a tech with a BS degree in molecular biology for results all the clinical wants is a positive or negative answer the days of lengthy descriptions running for pages are over with most clinical doctors never read them anyway. 4) increasing cut backs from CMS ( Medicare) , insurance companies etc. in 2015 the Aetna cut re imbursements for lab test by 50% no more funning a lab for profit . you need to be a "mill" ,e.g. Quest or Labcorp just to survive or break even. 5) increasing computers and robotics now computers read microscope slides 6) encroachment by other fields, like radiology and FNA's most "deeps" are done by radiology and all they want is a tech to read the slide they do not want the pathologist other places they do not do FNA's the surgeons want to do a biopsy to get paid. so with all of this the field will fade. pockets will exist ,research will always exist. but I do not recommend anyone going into it. try Internal medicine if you want to do diagnostic work then you can still see patients if the lab work gets cut. to me the only one that will go into it are 1) the ones that want to do just research and live from grant to grant , 2) those that do not speak English ING that never bother to learn English, and 3) those that have behavior or cognitive skills that are, lacking and can not see patients I would say get into internal medicine but do not fool yourself into thinking that Pathology is still a very lucrative field . those days are over with

 

[HowlPrenderghast]

If you were asked the same question right now, How would you answer this question?

 

[KeratinPearls]

If you were asked the same question right now, How would you answer this question?

No it’s not dying. Someone needs to read biopsies and resections.

There are both positives and negatives just like in every field.

 

[Deucedano]

I got an ideal job that many would consider a "dream job". High pay, low-moderate work hours and a great location (at least for me, probably not the case for everyone). The field is contracting, but pathologists will still be needed even if molecular testing takes off as a screening tool and if AI does a majority of the low complexity biopsy type specimens. Having said that and I am happy with my job overall (though not necessarily being a pathologist), there is no way I would go into pathology as a medical student right now. Too much uncertainty with molecular testing and AI digital pathology.

 

[Med Director New England]

Not dying - but rapidly consolidating.

Addendum (edit): and a great field so long as the number of pathologists who complete training matches or (better) is slightly less than the the demand.