My random musings on the 80-hour work week: Is an 80-hour work week intrinsically "good" or "bad"? It seems that a lot of people think it is. If you are FOR it, you argue that "more hours doesn't mean better training", "we're not slaves for the hospital to use", and "fatigue leads to mistakes". If you are AGAINST it, you argue that "the new breed of doctors are lazy", "you need the hours to get the needed experience", and "we did it, so you should too". And you know who is on which side (often). Attendings and upper years who went through the 120-work week are usually anti-hour restrictions. Juniors levels and interns are generally more pro-hour restrictions. This has, in my VERY limited experience, led to friction between the two. I have heard attendings say, "yeah, I'm not for the 80-hour work week, but that's what we've come to with the new generation of physicians". And chiefs who have said, "I worked 120-hours/wk while doing research ...I don't want to work with anyone who can only hack 80 hours". (By the way, if non-medical people heard that comment, I think their heads would spin like on 'Poltergeist'.) I can certainly sympathize with that viewpoint. If I got reamed in training and then saw people basically getting a perceived white-glove treatment, I would be a little steamed too. But isn't that also the basis of hazing (NOT that I am saying they are exactly the same thing)? "I got my butt paddled in a cemetary for eight hours and then left naked to find my way home, so now it's my turn to be the paddler"? I'm torn because I feel a) guilty that I'm not "strong" enough to take 120-hours/wk (yeah, I've bought into that argument) and b) sad that I won't get to see as much stuff go down as people in the past. On the other hand, I also still think that "more is better by definition" is also a lame argument. What do you guys think?