Should I Choose MD, MD/PhD, or PhD?

[Algophiliac]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=721363
My fears about choosing the MD route in either scenario (MD only, or just MD/PhD) center around me actually not agreeing with some common practices in medicine today--overprescribing medication, calling "depression" a disorder of the brain in the PHYSICAL sense that should be treated with medications, and on and on.

And yet, I am aware that MDs such as McDougall and Barnard seem to manage fine, despite being plagued by such misinformation and frankly, imo, malpractice. They also engage in plenty of clinical research while holding no PhD degrees whatsoever. So maybe clinical or translational research with an 80/20 or otherwise split would be a possibility for me?

Note: I wish to focus, currently, on neurological conditions, infectious diseases, or chronic diseases of poor lifestyle choices (and yes, I'm including cancers in this category, to a certain extent!). I know it sounds like I'm limiting myself, and may at some point change my mind, but I am highly interested in such things for now.

Also, I just want to point out that I don't want to take ANYTHING at face value--such as pharmaceutical companies. But I don't believe chiro chitter-chatter either. ;P Ahhh, any tips?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gstrub]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=721363
My fears about choosing the MD route in either scenario (MD only, or just MD/PhD) center around me actually not agreeing with some common practices in medicine today--overprescribing medication, calling "depression" a disorder of the brain in the PHYSICAL sense that should be treated with medications, and on and on.

And yet, I am aware that MDs such as McDougall and Barnard seem to manage fine, despite being plagued by such misinformation and frankly, imo, malpractice. They also engage in plenty of clinical research while holding no PhD degrees whatsoever. So maybe clinical or translational research with an 80/20 or otherwise split would be a possibility for me?

Note: I wish to focus, currently, on neurological conditions, infectious diseases, or chronic diseases of poor lifestyle choices (and yes, I'm including cancers in this category, to a certain extent!). I know it sounds like I'm limiting myself, and may at some point change my mind, but I am highly interested in such things for now.

Also, I just want to point out that I don't want to take ANYTHING at face value--such as pharmaceutical companies. But I don't believe chiro chitter-chatter either. ;P Ahhh, any tips?

If you are not a troll, I will give you some advice:
If you are remotely interested in taking care of patients, don't get a PhD only.
If you just want to take care of patients and have some clinical research going, don't waste your time and just do MD.
If you have found that you enjoy...REALLY enjoy...actually conducting basic scienceresearch (i.e. don't just enjoy the IDEA of doing research), AND are interested in taking care of patients, look into MD.PhD.


And perhaps be a little more open minded. But I was in high school once too, so I understand.
Good luck.

 

[Algophiliac]

If you are not a troll, I will give you some advice:
If you are remotely interested in taking care of patients, don't get a PhD only.
If you just want to take care of patients and have some clinical research going, don't waste your time and just do MD.
If you have found that you enjoy...REALLY enjoy...actually conducting basic scienceresearch (i.e. don't just enjoy the IDEA of doing research), AND are interested in taking care of patients, look into MD.PhD.


And perhaps be a little more open minded. But I was in high school once too, so I understand.
Good luck.

What on earth makes you think I'm a troll? I am just frustrated with the educational system and misinformation. They sold cigarettes in hospitals once. Enough said. I want to find and spread the truth for all.

I am very interested in treating patients, just not treating ONLY their symptoms. I don't want to give patients medications for migraines and send them on their merry ways without finding the ACTUAL root cause of the migraines. This frustrates me as a patient, and it frustrates me to see it being imposed upon others. Certainly, I would love to ease their pain with medications, but I don't want them to become long-term users, because the migraines are only a symptom--the real dangers in their bodies have not been solved.

Well, I haven't actually conducted basic science research, and I've never actually spent a few hours in the clinic diagnosing patients either. I've watched others do both, however, so what can I do but assume or have ideas about both sides?

Based on my observations, I would prefer clinical or translation research, but I would not be averse to basic science research either. And I do want research to be a high part of my job, someday. But not just research. I don't know what else to say.

I'm not in high school--I'm a college freshman.

 

[Palaver87]

Hey Algophiliac,

I think you should get into a lab of your choice (or two) and then see how you like the experience

Also, just be sure to keep your GPA up (>3.6) and get in some patient contact (if you haven't already), so you don't close doors

 

[Algophiliac]

Hey Algophiliac,

I think you should get into a lab of your choice (or two) and then see how you like the experience

Also, just be sure to keep your GPA up (>3.6) and get in some patient contact (if you haven't already), so you don't close doors

I've been in two labs so far and LOVE both of them. However, I meant that I've never done what an actual PhD does in the labs--just the lab work itself. The lab work itself is interesting, as well, but I hear PhDs basically think all day instead?

Well, yes, but I'm just not sure which to focus on more--patient contact or research.

 

[flashback]

What on earth makes you think I'm a troll? I am just frustrated with the educational system and misinformation. They sold cigarettes in hospitals once. Enough said. I want to find and spread the truth for all.

I am very interested in treating patients, just not treating ONLY their symptoms. I don't want to give patients medications for migraines and send them on their merry ways without finding the ACTUAL root cause of the migraines. This frustrates me as a patient, and it frustrates me to see it being imposed upon others. Certainly, I would love to ease their pain with medications, but I don't want them to become long-term users, because the migraines are only a symptom--the real dangers in their bodies have not been solved.

Well, I haven't actually conducted basic science research, and I've never actually spent a few hours in the clinic diagnosing patients either. I've watched others do both, however, so what can I do but assume or have ideas about both sides?

Based on my observations, I would prefer clinical or translation research, but I would not be averse to basic science research either. And I do want research to be a high part of my job, someday. But not just research. I don't know what else to say.

I'm not in high school--I'm a college freshman.

He thinks that you are a troll because you came on here posing a "question" that is reallly more of a statement about how you feel about doctors. You clearly have some grudge against MDs and have made some wide sweeping generalizations that simply are not accurate; so you've already lost credibility in the eyes of most people reading your post. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly areas in which medicine can/should improve... but that isn't the point of this thread.

Listen to what others have said. Keep in mind you don't have a shot in hell of getting into an MD/PhD program unless you've demonstrated some experience with basic science research. It's really not as glamorous as you're making it out to be, but it is still incredibly rewarding to some people. Having an MD/PhD will allow you the freedome to decide how you want to allocate your time toward research and clinical care. The vast majority of md/phds will spend ~80% of their time doing research and the other 20% doing clinical work. There are very few 50/50 people mostly because it takes an incredible ammount of time to maintain a laboratory.

Additionally, one important piece of advice given to one of my classmates who has some fairly radical thinking against the current medical "system" was "Will you be better able to make the changes in the world that you want with an 'MD' behind your name or with some other degree?" Just because you're an MD doesn't mean that you have to fit the profile of one that you stereotyped here. You may want to look into MD/MPH programs as well if social issues are top priority for you rather than basic science research.

 

[Neuronix]

He thinks that you are a troll because you came on here posing a "question" that is reallly more of a statement about how you feel about doctors. You clearly have some grudge against MDs and have made some wide sweeping generalizations that simply are not accurate; so you've already lost credibility in the eyes of most people reading your post. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly areas in which medicine can/should improve... but that isn't the point of this thread.

I'll second that. What the heck was the point of all that nonsense in the op's posts about the practice? You don't want to go into medicine because you don't agree with how medicine is practiced?! You come into medicine with an open mind, learn the evidence-based practice of medicine, and apply it. This isn't about your personal beliefs. If everyone practiced medicine according to whatever beliefs they had, nobody would get the same care. We believe we're giving optimal care for the conditions of patients based on evidence. If you think you have a better answer, you're welcome to research that answer, test it, and show us you're right, with all the fame and glory that provides. Until then, you need to trust that generations of practicing physicians and research know what they're doing. If you don't think your personal beliefs would allow you to do the duties expected of a physician, then maybe you shouldn't go to medical school.

Specific points: anti-depressant medication has been repeatedly shown to be as effective if not more effective than psychotherapy. The best is both of them in combination. We don't really know the basis for most people's migraines. We know certain medications seem to work and hypothesize the migraines are mediated or influenced by those receptors those medications work on. If you want to go do research on migraines, that's great. But what test do you plan on doing to find the root cause of your patient's migraines?! There isn't one.

Op: You're a freshman? If you are considering MD/PhD start doing research now. Do basic science research, as that is what MD/PhD programs are designed to train (mostly). Don't want to do or like basic science research? Then you need to seriously assess why you are interested in a PhD with faculty who can advise you.

The vast majority of md/phds will spend ~80% of their time doing research and the other 20% doing clinical work.

Careful. This is a *goal*, not a *reality*.

There are very few 50/50 people mostly because it takes an incredible ammount of time to maintain a laboratory.

Also untrue. I know several of these personally.

See: http://weill.cornell.edu/mdphd/bm~doc/are-mdphd-programs-meetin.pdf

 

[RxnMan]

Um...yeah. Usually I chime in on these sorts of posts to provide a different opinion, but when I read the original post...I hit Backspace.

 

[jammy22]

OP: In regards to whether you should be an MD, MD/PhD, or just a PhD, or something else. Keep in mind you are a freshman and the earliest you would apply would be your senior year. You may not think so, but that is a long ways off. When I was trying to decide out the rest of my life my freshman and sophomore year, I kept switching back and forth, one day I was MD-only, the next MD-PhD, then back to MD-only.

My advice is this (its common advice, its really simple, but its really good)...If you have an interest in patient-contact in the context of being a physician then shadow doctors and/or volunteer in a hospital. If you think that you would like research, join a lab. If you want to go on a medical mission trip, go on one. Pursue what you are interested in. And make sure to work hard in school. Then by your junior year (maybe senior year), you will be able to look back over the course of your college career and you will have a much better idea of what you should do.

As helpful as SDN is (it is incredibly helpful!), reading forums isn't going to tell you what you should do for the rest of your life. Think about it, we are a bunch of strangers who don't know you and you don't know us. I for one, wouldn't trust a bunch of strangers what to do with my life. If you want to figure out what you should do with your life, live you life, and then you will know what do to with it.

 

[Puppet Master]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=721363
My fears about choosing the MD route in either scenario (MD only, or just MD/PhD) center around me actually not agreeing with some common practices in medicine today--overprescribing medication, calling "depression" a disorder of the brain in the PHYSICAL sense that should be treated with medications, and on and on.

I know this is an old post but I feel I must chime in. This sort of thinking is deleterious to a aspiring neuroscientist like myself (and for the advancement of knowledge of mind and brain).

If you don't want to think of the brain in the physical sense then maybe DO or MD is not what you're looking for. If depression isn't a physical disorder then what is it? Magic (e.g. ghost of the machine)? You should look into priesthood, homeopathy, acupuncture, or naturopathy. These are based on ideology not on science. Medical practice isn't based on the individual but on the consensus of experts and research in a particular area.