What's wrong with atul gawande?

About the Ads
Chemistry>Physics

Chemistry>Physics

Puggy
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
169
Reaction score
57
I would post this in the lounge but I'm guessing most of the pre meds have read one or more of his books.

So why are there so many opinions on his work? It feels like everyone has a problem wih him and it could be a small portion of SDN hive mind I saw, but he seems really non controversial. Like checklist manifesto, really straightforward, no controversial topics, just improving medicine. I just got "being mortal", and maybe I'll find some hidden egotistical themes in his writing or something else, but so far he feels just like a good guy. My question is: if you've read any of his books, did you like them? Why or why not
Members don't see this ad.
 
I personally like him a lot. I've read Complications and Better and hope to pick up Being Mortal soon. I feel like he writes very honestly, if with a slight (slight) touch of tempered arrogance, and he's always very insightful about some of the specific problems facing medical professionals and patients.
 
I like his work. He's humble, and in Complications, he really talked about his feelings of shame and incompetence on the learning curve. He talked about hard work, grit, etc, which made it very relatable and inspiring, since we all have those moments. Better was also good, and Checklist Manifesto was interesting, and scary for people who have no idea what happens behind the scenes.

I believe that the arrogance isn't for medical professionals; it's so that the lay person can understand why there has to be a certain level of arrogance. It's not a perfect science, and if you don't believe you are good enough, you'll get chewed up. Now, that's not to say that you have to outwardly act arrogant, but I think everyone has an internal arrogance that is healthy, and allows them to do their job with more confidence. But it is annoying for people in the field, likely due to a competition sort of thing. Lots of eye rolling.

However, I cannot stand how his eyebrows constantly fly up, then go back to normal, when he talks. Jesus, it drives me nuts.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Chemistry>Physics said:
I would post this in the lounge but I'm guessing most of the pre meds have read one or more of his books.

So why are there so many opinions on his work? It feels like everyone has a problem wih him and it could be a small portion of SDN hive mind I saw, but he seems really non controversial. Like checklist manifesto, really straightforward, no controversial topics, just improving medicine. I just got "being mortal", and maybe I'll find some hidden egotistical themes in his writing or something else, but so far he feels just like a good guy. My question is: if you've read any of his books, did you like them? Why or why not
Click to expand...

The reason people are iffy about the checklist thing is that it's actually a bit of a controversial topic in surgery. There are a number of people who believe it's not "just about improving medicine" but rather about pushing a single agenda as a qI strategy, and it treats QI as an easy fix. There's also this tendency when people present a more nuanced argument for the checklist crew to gang up with a "oooh how can you say you're against checklists, you just don't want to be bothered"

There were also some allegations that his numbers in the main checklist study were farfetched (more or less allegations that he used an improper statistical method) and one of the prominent researchers had his name taken off the study.

There have subsequently been several studies failing to replicate the findings or to demonstrate any improvement as a result of checklist implementation.

The other thing that comes up in regards to him is that he's now somewhat distanced himself from the academic surgical world. He doesn't really go to meetings or interact with other surgeons doing similar research. He has migrated more into this celeb-niche market, although he does collaborate with a number of people within the Harvard system.

Last criticism is directly from what I've heard from residents at BWH which is that he (a) doesn't operate much and (b) his technical skill doesn't exactly meet up with what you'd think from reading his books. This one in particular I always take with a grain of salt since there is always a low-blow tendency to criticize academic surgeons' technical abilities when you have nothing else to go after.

Anyhoo. There's a tendency to tear down celebrities, and he has certainly achieved celebrity within the medical world and without it. But those are the common reasons right there.

I like his books and think he's insightful and clearly an outstanding writer. He's also just as proficient a scientific writer and publishes like bi-monthly in the NEJM it seems. But if you want to know why you hear grumbling, those are some of the common reasons.
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree with SouthernSurgeon's view regarding Checklist Manifesto, many of his support towards checklists seems one-sided and although he brings up several counter arguments, much of his view depends on the significant improvement in medicine after the implementation of checklists...

Regarding Better and Complications, I would doubt many people have problems with these books, Atul Gawande is a great story teller, and his writing is very appealing towards both the lay person, as well as those in the medical field.

Finally, IMO, Being Mortal was my favorite work thus far. It exemplified Gawande's ability to tell stories with real life examples that nearly everyone can relate to. In addition, it brought up contemporary issues with end of life health care that will be undoubtedly become increasingly important in the coming decades.

To me, Atul as a writer is great. In person, I have heard from many that he is trending away towards his surgical background and more towards public/global health research which I think is quite interesting...

Just my $0.02
 
fully concur with southern surgeon. he's a fantastic writer, whether we're talking about his pop writing or his scientific writing.

i've personally experienced diminishing returns with his work, which i can't really place a finger on but something tells me it's a combination of (1) increased focus on pet causes at the expense of interesting case studies and (2) increased folksiness of his writing/aiming for a more general audience as he gets more famous. the second one i'm not sure whether what i'm describing has actually happened or it's just seemed that way as i've gotten older and more educated/medically literate
 
I generally like Gawande, and found "Being Mortal" (the Frontline doc at least) to be excellent.

Jerome Groopman, on the other hand, comes across as a pompous, self-congratulating ass.
 
Wasn't aware there was any controversy over him and can't imagine why there would be. One of my favorite writers. Some of his New Yorker pieces are really fantastic, for those of you who have only read his books.
 
TheRhymenocerous said:
Wasn't aware there was any controversy over him and can't imagine why there would be. One of my favorite writers. Some of his New Yorker pieces are really fantastic, for those of you who have only read his books.
Click to expand...

@SouthernSurgeon posted some criticisms above.
 
Vain Brother said:
fully concur with southern surgeon. he's a fantastic writer, whether we're talking about his pop writing or his scientific writing.

i've personally experienced diminishing returns with his work, which i can't really place a finger on but something tells me it's a combination of (1) increased focus on pet causes at the expense of interesting case studies and (2) increased folksiness of his writing/aiming for a more general audience as he gets more famous. the second one i'm not sure whether what i'm describing has actually happened or it's just seemed that way as i've gotten older and more educated/medically literate
Click to expand...
Agree with this post. I loved Being Mortal, liked Complications and Better (but not on the same level as Being Mortal), then read Checklist Manifesto, which was just okay. He is a very engaging writer, and now has niche. There really isn't anything earth shattering about his observations, but he has a good editor/agent, so I'm sure he'll just keep pumping out books every year or so. They are quick reads, nothing to technical. Perfect for the layman/pre-med, but I'm sure his colleagues roll their eyes at him "stating the obvious". He is just eloquent enough to put it in words in a publication. Expect to see him on TV soon like Sanjay Gupta.
 
I still want to go see him talk once before I leave boston...

Also, being a prolific researcher and an incredibly proficient surgeon are damn near impossible to do together.

Doing quality research yourself takes too much damn time to be able to concentrate on doing well at surgery. You become a better surgeon and stay that way by operating. If you're doing research and writing most of your week, you really can't do that.

I know Gawande's good, but there's a difference between being an academic surgeon and being him. Unless someone else writes his books... I wonder how he has time for anything else. Didn't he write most of them during residency? I know some of the harvard residencies have a lot of time built in for research so I guess it's do able, but how the eff did he publish papers, write books, and operate?

I think I applied for a job to be his research coordinator (for his books) back in the day lol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
SDN Article: Practicing the Art of Reflection with a Prehealth Journal (or Podcast, or Online Blog)
Replies
0
Views
394
Emil Chuck
E
E
SDN Article: Compassion Competency: Interview with Emelia Sam
Replies
0
Views
458
Emil Chuck
E
E
OMG! WHAT SHOULD I DO?!
Replies
2
Views
1K
eatthoseapplicationsup!!
E
T
What to do Summer after high school
Replies
6
Views
2K
SweetBurger
SweetBurger
D
High School Senior with a few questions
Replies
8
Views
1K
theKingLT
theKingLT
Top