Which Programs Are the Most Progressive?

[canadian1234]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am an old (my arteries are young, though 😀) MD who graduated from a Canadian medical school many years ago (1971). I am an innovator who has brought about progressive legislation in relation to fair physician audits and alt medicine. I have been out of standard practice for many years.

I am looking at appyling for a residency in psychiatry in the USA.

Many program directors require recent clinical experience and recent graduation from medical school 😡.

Would you recommend any particular programs who would see me as an asset 😍?

Thank you.

 

[solumanculver]

Hey, what do you mean "alt medicine"? Something like Reiki?

 

[canadian1234]

Hey, what do you mean "alt medicine"? Something like Reiki?

Alternative/complementary/integrative medicine includes natural alternatives to allopathic methods. Includes Reiki, acupuncture, vitamins, herbs, nutrition, lifestyle adjustment etc. Dr. Andrew Weil at the U of Arizona at Tucson is probably the best known USA advocate.

 

[Wednesday]

Try the University of Washington.

 

[canadian1234]

Try the University of Washington.

Great. Thanks.😍

 

[whopper]

the most "progressive"?

U of Oregon has a strong hippy culture in & around it.

 

[solumanculver]

I am an innovator who has brought about progressive legislation in relation to fair physician audits and alt medicine. I have been out of standard practice for many years.

What kind of progressive legislation did you bring about?

 

[davidperez1970]

I don't know for sure, but I'm interested in the same question. Anyhow, you can check out this:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11182&page=293

 

[Redwhiteblue]

Pretty unlikely anyone would take you. U of AZ may be a possible due to their association with Andrew. However he did not even complete a residency for your info-after 1 intern year he started this holistic BS

Personally it will look pretty bad when you list all your alternative experience with grass and tree roots curing psychosis.

 

[canadian1234]

What kind of progressive legislation did you bring about?

Thanks for your enquiry. My most recent success was being involved in the Health System Improvements Act 2007 in Ontario, Canada. This brings in a new fair physician audit system and establishes regulation (and therefore recognition) of naturopathy and homeopathy.

I was also the initiator of the Medicine Amendment Act 2000 which prevents the College of Physicians (equivalent to your state Medical Boards) from disciplining doctors solely on the basis of practicing alternative medicine.

 

[canadian1234]

Pretty unlikely anyone would take you. U of AZ may be a possible due to their association with Andrew. However he did not even complete a residency for your info-after 1 intern year he started this holistic BS

Personally it will look pretty bad when you list all your alternative experience with grass and tree roots curing psychosis.

When he did his internship, one could go into general practice after doing a one year internship. Remember Dr. Kildare? How about giving orange juice to someone who is psychotic because he has low blood sugar as a result of being given too much insulin? This may not be an example of alt med but most advocates such as Weil believe in "integrative medicine": recommending the best, least harmful method for the situation, whether that be standard or alternative medicine...and allowing patients to accept or reject any recommendation. Remember, "Prima Non Nocere"...above all, do no harm.

 

[solumanculver]

Thanks for your enquiry. My most recent success was being involved in the Health System Improvements Act 2007 in Ontario, Canada. This brings in a new fair physician audit system and establishes regulation (and therefore recognition) of naturopathy and homeopathy.

Why do you believe in Homeopathy? I'm not sure about naturopathy, it seems like it might have some effect, but homeopathy is kind of based on a discredited theory of chemistry... and biology... Why is recognition of that a good thing? Shouldn't we be trying to ban it instead?

 

[whopper]

I remember Dennis Miller referring to Alternative Medicine saying something to the effect of, "if it were to come down to me taking a pill or sticking my pen_s in a beehive, I'm going with the pill".

Not that all alternative medicine is that crude. A lot of it has good studies backing it up. E.g. s-adenosylmethionine for the treatment of mood disorders. In my opinion, so long as there is good data to back up its use, I'm open to using it.

Doctors should be knowledgeable on alternative & intergrative medicine no matter the pro vs con opinion because patients will use it whether or not some docs approve of it. Docs need to ask their patients & understand what treatments the patient is using.

 

[solumanculver]

Not that all alternative medicine is that crude. A lot of it has good studies backing it up. E.g. s-adenosylmethionine for the treatment of mood disorders. In my opinion, so long as there is good data to back up its use, I'm open to using it.

Just to be clear, once an alternative treatment has evidence backing it up, doesn't it cease to be alternative?

Doctors should be knowledgeable on alternative & intergrative medicine no matter the pro vs con opinion because patients will use it whether or not some docs approve of it. Docs need to ask their patients & understand what treatments the patient is using.

Hi, yeah I agree. If patients are going to use chinese remedies or something, their physician should know something about it. But it seems like the primary purpose of this knowledge should be to use it to convince their patients not to do that stuff... unless it is evidence-based, in which case the physician should just prescribe it himself.

Call me conservative, but isn't alternative medicine bad? It's like using treatments have have no proven benefits, but with real risks, and having to pay money for it...

Well, I was raised in a tipi by hippies... I was taught all about that natural herbal stuff. I think that its primary role is as a means for people to feel good about their health by drinking grass-juice for $2.00 a shot and eating 30 vitamins a day, but it doesn't seem to provide much in the way of improving their health... at least none that we can discern.

 

[whopper]

Call me conservative, but isn't alternative medicine bad? It's like using treatments have have no proven benefits, but with real risks, and having to pay money for it...

Well I guess its an argument on semantics...

E.g. glucosaminoglycans by several is considered a homeopathic approach to preventing & treating osteoarthritis, yet there are several studies backing it up. Heck, studying g-cans is a part of biochemistry which is a required course in medschool. In Europe, its supposedly commonly reccomended by doctors, but for whatever reason, MD's don't seem to be reccomending it in the US. (my own opinion is because its not a pharmaceutically profitable treatment with an FDA patent).


I would never reccomend something that is not evidenced based that has no basis in therapy other than folk medicine.

But several "alternative" treatments are getting more & more evidence to suggest they are effective. Some examples-accupuncture has lead to investigation that has lead to the gate theory of pain. Research has backed up the effectiveness of accupuncture. Several still consider it alternative medicine.

Which is why some like Andrew Weil have suggested the incorporation of their use and why he called it "Integrative Medicine"-the use of treatments that can be considered alternative tx, if they have evidence to back up their use.

I would also not reccomend several alternative therapies without using the traditional-"western" tx, even with evidence backed data in severe circumstances. E.g. if I got a patient with major depressive disorder-I'm not going to tell that pt to use s-adenosylmethionine (SAMEe-a modified amino acid found in several studies to effectively treat depression) alone. I might tell that patient to use the SAMe in addition to an antidepressant.

I regularly tell my patients to consider the use of fish oil & SAMe because studies are showing evidence to back up their use in psychiatric disorders. I never though tell them to take these as treatments alone, and that more studies may be needed to back their use. I figure why not? They are more affordable than most of the antidepressants out there, and as the STAR*D has showed, antidepressants while effective, are as effective as we would like them to be. Depressed patients need every thing we can offer them to improve their mood.

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

Well I guess its an argument on semantics...

E.g. glucosaminoglycans by several is considered a homeopathic approach to preventing & treating osteoarthritis, yet there are several studies backing it up. Heck, studying g-cans is a part of biochemistry which is a required course in medschool. In Europe, its supposedly commonly reccomended by doctors, but for whatever reason, MD's don't seem to be reccomending it in the US. (my own opinion is because its not a pharmaceutically profitable treatment with an FDA patent).

No, it's because it is as pointless trying to cure your arthritis with GAG pills as it is trying to cure your baldness with swallowing hairballs.

I do not know about the whole of Europe, but I can vouch for Austria and the UK - oral GAG supplements are not prescribed/recommended by MDs.

 

[Chimed]

Well I guess its an argument on semantics...

E.g. glucosaminoglycans by several is considered a homeopathic approach to preventing & treating osteoarthritis, yet there are several studies backing it up. Heck, studying g-cans is a part of biochemistry which is a required course in medschool. In Europe, its supposedly commonly reccomended by doctors, but for whatever reason, MD's don't seem to be reccomending it in the US. (my own opinion is because its not a pharmaceutically profitable treatment with an FDA patent).

I'm not sure why glucosaminoglycans would be considered homeopathic, as it doesn't fit the definition of a homeopathic cure. Naturopathic, yes. Homeopathic medicines are based on the premise of "likes cure likes" or the laws of similarities. The "medicines" are produced by taking substances that are diluted 100's of times in water or alcholol until there is basically nothing left. In the end, the only thing left is supposively the "memory" of the molecule. It is the "memory" that is suppose to stimulate the body's vital force to increase it's immune system. 🙄 Can anyone direct us to even one valid study that shows a homeopathic remedy works better then placebo?

With all due respect, I have a hard time with the whole "MD's don't prescribe things that are not profitable" conspiracy. I mean, how many doc's have you seen NOT prescribe aspirin because it is not profitable? In my opinion, MD/DO's tend to be slow to prescribe things that have not been put to scientific scrutiny and are not evidence based.

(BTW, I'm far from anti-alternative medicine and think many of the treatments are valid. I just believe in a healthy skepticism. 😉)

 

[whopper]

No, it's because it is as pointless trying to cure your arthritis with GAG pills as it is trying to cure your baldness with swallowing hairballs.

Never said it was a "cure". GAGs have evidence to back them up. Swallowing hairballs doesn't. Exactly the type of thing I was trying to point towards. Some people are against some types of treatment even when they got evidence to back their use.

I mean, how many doc's have you seen NOT prescribe aspirin because it is not profitable?

Hmm, how many people prescribe Seroquel simply based on its antihistaminic properties? Why not then tell a pt to take benadryl instead? Add to that-Seroquel's antihistaminic properties for tx are not as well studed as benadryl-yet Seroquel is seeming to get more prescriptions for the antihistaminic uses than benadryl reccomendations (at least where I am).

How many doctors reccomend fish oil? SAMe? Light therapy? Are there studies backing their use? Yes.

Pharmaceutical reps pushing their products works. If it didn't-the industry wouldn't use that approach.

I mean, how many doc's have you seen NOT prescribe aspirin because it is not profitable?

Semantics--but aspirin is OTC, not requiring a prescription. One of the few things I have seen that is widely reccomended & taken. However it is only 1 example of a generic med-there are several that are not getting attention.

Healthy skepticism is a MUST. Agree with you. Also you are correct in separating homeopathic from naturopathic. I mistakenly used the term homeopathic.

In my opinion, MD/DO's tend to be slow to prescribe things that have not been put to scientific scrutiny and are not evidence based.

True, but also depending on the quality of the doc. There are bad doctors out there. Also, several treatments get used more quickly when you got a company heavily marketing the item. Its easier to learn about a new treatment when there's a free dinner, a booklet, a pen & a video provided to you for free from the pharmaceutical company.

As for trying a new treatment because it would've required someone to sit down & read a journal, I'm seeing less of that than the above.

 

[davidperez1970]

When he did his internship, one could go into general practice after doing a one year internship.

Forgive my ignorance, but I take it that this is no longer possible? Or is it?

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

Never said it was a "cure". GAGs have evidence to back them up. Swallowing hairballs doesn't. Exactly the type of thing I was trying to point towards. Some people are against some types of treatment even when they got evidence to back their use.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as the available literature is concerned, GAGs have "small-to-moderate symptomatic efficacy in OA" (which, imho can be quite well explained by placebo effect and intangibles like taking other OOC meds). That is, if you completely ignore the GAIT study which showed that "glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with OA of the knee". Finally, if someone can explain to me how swallowed GAGs can affect remote areas like knee joints, having been digested and broken down in oligosaccharides and amino acids in the gut, I would be very interested.

The "hairball" comment is, sadly, not mine - that was the opinion of a Cornell orthopaedic star, one of the leaders in the field. Did I mention that I spent several years training in orthopaedics and working in orthopaedics-related research, before I saw the error of my ways? (BTW, I have done quite a few intra-articular GAG injections myself - those work beautifully, no doubt there).

 

[whopper]

Someone with extensive experience in orthopedics will certainly know more than a psyche resident in this specific area. If an orthopedic expert were to mention the context of the comment, I'd be open to listening to it. You are right--the effects of GAGs from what I've read are small to moderate. (so are the benefits of several psyche meds).

However the point's the same. Some treatments have evidence to back them up. Some don't. Some docs choose to consider some of the evidence based treatments with scorn because they are not conventional. The level of polemic barbs that can sometimes be traded on this issue IMHO is immature. Let the science sort it out. If the science shows some evidence, be open to seeing where it can go & have a high level of skepticism, but don't outright throw it out the window because its sounds unconventional. A previous example I brought up was accupunture--for decades it was criticized by those not willing to even check out the evidence based data on it.

There are of course differing levels of evidence, some better than others. Placebo controlled, double blinded is of course better than a case study, & there's varying degrees in between. Some of the alternative treatments have evidenced base data, but not enough & need more to either prove or disprove their worth.

 

[canadian1234]

As the OP of this thread, I appreciate all of your replies. You can no longer do one year postgraduate training in Canada and then go into practice. The minimum is a two year family practice residency. Is this now similar in the USA?

I would like to clarify that I am looking to do a residency in the USA or Canada in order to enter clinical practice again. I am not looking to practice alternative medicine in the residency but trying to find a program that has an open mind to my "advancing" age, long time out of medical school and past involvement in alt med which lead to my battle with the College of Physicians.

You might be interested to know that a small doctor/citizen group of us recently was able to convince the government to abolish the College's largest committee. The College lost millions of dollars and a large amount of its power because it had been conducting unfair physician audits which caused many to restrict or close their practices and some to commit suicide.

 

[michaelrack]

In some states a US grad can get a license after just a 1-year internship, but its difficult in this case to get malpractice insurance, etc.

I would advise you to apply widely to psych residency programs. You'll get in somewhere, but it probably won't be a top program. I'm sure some program that is dependent on (non-Canadian) FMG's will take you over an FMG.

 

[rechaim]

In some states a US grad can get a license after just a 1-year internship, but its difficult in this case to get malpractice insurance, etc.

I would advise you to apply widely to psych residency programs. You'll get in somewhere, but it probably won't be a top program. I'm sure some program that is dependent on (non-Canadian) FMG's will take you over an FMG.

Hi Michael. I hope you're well. Please forgive me, but I must say that your comment is very narrow-minded indeed. You see, I am a FMG. So I do get offended when somebody like you ( a psych attending) says something like that. The OP is out of practice for 20 years. He sounds like an interesting person, and I am sure he would be able to get in somewhere. However his credentials unfortunatelly aren't so good, being out of practice for so many years. When you say " they will take you over a FMG", you're being narrow-minded and misinformed , to say the least. I dont want to make you feel uncomfortable, but I feel it's necessary to show you another perspective in this situation. Americans don't have a higher or lower IQ than people from other countries. Sorry. If you remember the Gauss curve, in any country you have the dummiest and the smartest. And the smartest turn out to be the politicians, lawyers and medical students. That's how it goes everywhere. My paragraph probably doesn't have the best grammar, well, English is my fifth language. I don't intend to sound like a "know-it-all" or anything like that, but it makes me sick when I read posts like yours. Would you be able to go to a foreign country like Israel, learn Hebrew in two years well enough to pass the boards there in the 99 percentile? Well, talk to some FMGs who have taken the USMLE, they have done just that. Some come here and learn the language fairly quickly, and pass the boards in the 99th percentile, simply because they have a very high IQ and are very assertive people. In one of the medical schools in my country, they actually tested the students and the lowest IQ was 145. Oh wait, perhaps Americans have a better training? Come on. Psych patients are the same here or in India. I agree that medical students here might have had a better exposure to top notch technology in Surgery rotations or the like...but in Psychiatry??? Is America better prepared to treat psych patients than France, or England, or Germany, or Australia? How do you know? So why do you say that a nice man from Canada who is 30 years out of practice is going to be chosen over younger candidates from India or Germany or Argentina who are fresh from Medical School ? What kind of narrowminded perspective is that? Again, I am sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable. And I also dont want this to deteriorate into an AMG versus FMG discussion, but I had to tell you something. It's my humble opinion, you're free to have yours.

 

[michaelrack]

How do you know? So why do you say that a nice man from Canada who is 30 years out of practice is going to be chosen over younger candidates from India or Germany or Argentina who are fresh from Medical School ?

The above was my statement of how things are, not necessarily how they should be. Based on the fact that I previously was involved in selecting and interviewing psychiatry residents/sleep fellows for the Univ of MS, I feel that I am well qualified to give advice to those seeking a psychiatry residency. I am just telling it like it is. Don't kill the messenger.

The rationale of a residency selection committee (and I don't necessarily agree with this) would be that a Canadian would be more culturally in tune and better able to relate to American psychiatric patients than an Indian. Also, graduation from a Canadian medical school would be considered equal to graduation from a US medical school (I'm not 100% sure about this last point, perhaps someone can post more about the similarities/differences between american and canadian medical education)

 

[canadian1234]

As the OP of this thread, I find these last two posts interesting. I have always considered myself in a similar position as the FMG's (but perhaps I am mistaken). As mild mannered Canadians, we respectfully use the term IMG now.

We all have strengths and weaknesses. I would hope that all are taken into some kind of balance without giving too much weight to any one characteristic such as IQ, medical school etc. Although through experience over the years, the PD's who select residents must learn something about the importance of each factor. I would hope that their personal prejudices would not play a large part.

 

[michaelrack]

Canadian training has a special status when it comes to obtaining board certification in pschiatry:
http://www.abpn.com/downloads/ifas/ifa_initial_Psych_08.pdf

I don't fully understand the section in the link talking about Canadian training, but it basically supports my point that Canadians have a special status that is different than other international medical graduates.

 

[rechaim]

Canadian training has a special status when it comes to obtaining board certification in pschiatry:
http://www.abpn.com/downloads/ifas/ifa_initial_Psych_08.pdf

I don't fully understand the section in the link talking about Canadian training, but it basically supports my point that Canadians have a special status that is different than other international medical graduates.

Physicians entering residency training (PGY-2) in psychiatry prior to July 1, 2001, may be granted credit for training completed
in Canada if the training was completed in a program accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Canada. These applicants must initiate the ABPN certification process by 2008 and should contact the Board office if
they have any questions.​

It only means that before 2001 the Canadian PGY-1 was accredited for residents entering the PGY-2 here for Psych, and in 2008 these people must initiate the ABPN certification. Prior to 2001 this was true for many specialties, and people from South Africa, Brazil, Germany and the like, depending on which school they had attended, were also able to do the same. Now this is not true for ANY specialty, including Psych. About your argument that a Canadian might be more in tune with American Psych...I respectfully assume you haven't had much experience working in other countries and acquiring an international experience. So you don't consider yourself prepared to work with the Latino, or Indian, or European population in America, because you're not from their country? Please. I'll give you an example. I have family in South America, Europe, Israel and G-d knows where, my husband was born in Manhattan and so were my children, I speak several languages and have lived in several places, so I consider myself a "world citizen" and not limited by geography. And this is true for a LOT of IMGs...Again, I really dont want to sound like a know-it-all, but I still think it is a pretty narrowminded approach to believe a candidate is better than another based on his nationality. The OP sounds great because of his accomplishments, he sounds like an assertive, mature person. And that's why he is good. Not because of his nationality. It's amazing how many Americans have no clue about cultural diversity, and believe everyone outside the US live in dictatorship. People from all over the world but here learn several languages, proper world geography and proper world history... I am sorry, again this is not personal ( I don't even know you) , but America IS a xenophobic country and this is a fact. I once dated a guy from here , who actually had an IVY league education, who told me that America is a free country and has a great society and EVERYWHERE else in the world people didn't have this much freedom. Oh my goodness. I broke up with him after a few dates because my ears could not listen to this junk. Sorry about the grammar ( I am still learning). By the way, I really love it here and will become an American Citizen soon, but every country has its problems, and unfortunatelly this "sense of entitlement" is endemic here. It's a great country, full of resources, but it could do better. Remember, if Einstein were a doctor, he would be an IMG.

Respectfully,

Rechaim.

 

[michaelrack]

I respectfully assume you haven't had much experience working in other countries and acquiring an international experience. So you don't consider yourself prepared to work with the Latino, or Indian, or European population in America, because you're not from their country? ..... Remember, if Einstein were a doctor, he would be an IMG.

Respectfully,

Rechaim.

You are right regarding my international experience, the only times I have left the country is at age 2 to go to Germany and a brief trip in college to a tourist resort town in Mexico.
I consider myself well prepared to work with most Americans citizens, though my ability to treat recent immigrant non-citizens may be limited. I would not presume to think that I could move to another country (except perhaps Great Britain/NewZealand/Australia) and be a good psychiatrist, even after 4 years of training in that country. Cultural issues and language are too important in psychiatry.

 

[canadian1234]

Physicians entering residency training (PGY-2) in psychiatry prior to July 1, 2001, may be granted credit for training completed

in Canada if the training was completed in a program accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Canada. These applicants must initiate the ABPN certification process by 2008 and should contact the Board office if
they have any questions.​

It only means that before 2001 the Canadian PGY-1 was accredited for residents entering the PGY-2 here for Psych, and in 2008 these people must initiate the ABPN certification. Prior to 2001 this was true for many specialties, and people from South Africa, Brazil, Germany and the like, depending on which school they had attended, were also able to do the same. Now this is not true for ANY specialty, including Psych. About your argument that a Canadian might be more in tune with American Psych...I respectfully assume you haven't had much experience working in other countries and acquiring an international experience. So you don't consider yourself prepared to work with the Latino, or Indian, or European population in America, because you're not from their country? Please. I'll give you an example. I have family in South America, Europe, Israel and G-d knows where, my husband was born in Manhattan and so were my children, I speak several languages and have lived in several places, so I consider myself a "world citizen" and not limited by geography. And this is true for a LOT of IMGs...Again, I really dont want to sound like a know-it-all, but I still think it is a pretty narrowminded approach to believe a candidate is better than another based on his nationality. The OP sounds great because of his accomplishments, he sounds like an assertive, mature person. And that's why he is good. Not because of his nationality. It's amazing how many Americans have no clue about cultural diversity, and believe everyone outside the US live in dictatorship. People from all over the world but here learn several languages, proper world geography and proper world history... I am sorry, again this is not personal ( I don't even know you) , but America IS a xenophobic country and this is a fact. I once dated a guy from here , who actually had an IVY league education, who told me that America is a free country and has a great society and EVERYWHERE else in the world people didn't have this much freedom. Oh my goodness. I broke up with him after a few dates because my ears could not listen to this junk. Sorry about the grammar ( I am still learning). By the way, I really love it here and will become an American Citizen soon, but every country has its problems, and unfortunatelly this "sense of entitlement" is endemic here. It's a great country, full of resources, but it could do better. Remember, if Einstein were a doctor, he would be an IMG.

Respectfully,

Rechaim.

Thanks for your kind comments. I think Canadians have devoloped a good reputation around the world for being peaceful, mild mannered etc. (Although our troops are in Afghanistan.) It is perhaps illogical to apply this to any individual.

I think the discrimination against IMG's because of the their medical training is unfair. The doctor supply crisis is huge. See current (Jan 14/08) cover story in Canada's Macleans magazine. I believe the problem could be solved by easing the severe restrictions on IMG's.

 

[rechaim]

You are right regarding my international experience, the only times I have left the country is at age 2 to go to Germany and a brief trip in college to a tourist resort town in Mexico.
I consider myself well prepared to work with most Americans citizens, though my ability to treat recent immigrant non-citizens may be limited. I would not presume to think that I could move to another country (except perhaps Great Britain/NewZealand/Australia) and be a good psychiatrist, even after 4 years of training in that country. Cultural issues and language are too important in psychiatry.

Cultural issues and language are very important. That's why it breaks my heart when I see that Columbia, for example, recruits 95% of AMGs who speak very little spanish in a hospital where 80% of the patients are Latino. But I must tell you that if you had learned Portuguese for example and had spent several years in Brazil ( or France, or Mexico, or Pakistan) you would have no problem practicing there. As a matter of fact, several leading psychiatrists in America have done that ( Leckman, Caracci). Leckman actually has travelled all over the world and he has been giving workshops for parents and families in over 15 countries! The world would be a better place if every doctor thought like that.... Of course having a superficial knowledge of the language doesn't help, that's why we have the 3 USMLE boards and the TOEFL and the Step 2 CS and the Interview and the residency and the PRITE.... somebody with a superficial knowledge of English wouldn't be able to do well on these... Perhaps the reason that many Americans think that IMGs "aren't good enough" has to do with their own fears - they haven't mastered other languages and haven't had experience in other countries...the whole concept of being a "world citizen" is too foreign. Who knows.

 

[rechaim]

Thanks for your kind comments. I think Canadians have devoloped a good reputation around the world for being peaceful, mild mannered etc. (Although our troops are in Afghanistan.) It is perhaps illogical to apply this to any individual.

I think the discrimination against IMG's because of the their medical training is unfair. The doctor supply crisis is huge. See current (Jan 14/08) cover story in Canada's Macleans magazine. I believe the problem could be solved by easing the severe restrictions on IMG's.

You're welcome. You should do research for some months here, then it will be easier to get into a nice program.

 

[canadian1234]

Thanks for the suggestion. Where is the best place to find research positions? What is the range of pay?

You're welcome. You should do research for some months here, then it will be easier to get into a nice program.

 

[rechaim]

Thanks for the suggestion. Where is the best place to find research positions? What is the range of pay?

Ok, I have a few suggestions: Jamaica Hospital in NYC, Queens, has an externship program starting in April , it lasts for a few months and you can get some LORs for Psych and the US Clinical Experience on your ERAS application. Look at Mount Sinai Hospital, Columbia and NYU for research opportunities, your best bet is to ask for an unpaid position and seem very, very, very interested in finding out the cure for Bipolar Disorder ( or whatever it is that the folks there are trying to find out) EVEN if they don't pay you anything. Paid positions can be found in Columbia as a fellowship, but it really is difficult to get one and you wont have as much flexibility. Work as a medical assistant once or twice week part time to get another letter. Try to get your name in some papers, join a NGO interested in Autistic Children in the Sudan, and write your personal statement aiming to solve all the problems in Health Care in America. You have a "political" background that might help you joining a Forensic Psych Research team. Of course it's very hard to do it all, but you get the point I believe.

 

[charlottecorday]

You might want to try:

University of Arizona (Tucson). Yes, one of it's famous guys is Dr Weil. The psychiatry department is full of cool people, some of them doing very cool research. I would definitly check it out if I were you. They get my vote as respectful of diverse cultural influences, open minded, and progressive.


Loma Linda University (San Bernardino). Also a psych department full of wonderful open minded people doing great things for the world. 7th Day Adventism highly values preventative health and excellent vegan nutrition.

Just do it.

 

[deleted77919]

A few tangential points. 1) The "99" two digit score does not represent a percentile of any sort. It is a scaled score based on an arbitrary passing standard equating to a 75. Anything below a 75 is failing, but that does not represent a percentile.

2) Canadian schools are accredited by the LCME, the same agency that accredits US schools. This makes it relatively easier for Canadians to apply for US residency programs and for US students to do the same.

3) One may accuse Americans of being xenophobic, but the US has a postgraduate medical education system that is one of the most open to foreigners. Take the USMLE Steps, get ECFMG certified, and you're good to go. As an American try getting a residency position in Norway, or Switzerland, anywhere in the EU, etc. It is nearly impossible to do. When it is done, it is on a case by case basis involving more paper work, embassy visits and telephone calls . . . well, you get the idea.

 

[canadian1234]

You might want to try:

University of Arizona (Tucson). Yes, one of it's famous guys is Dr Weil. The psychiatry department is full of cool people, some of them doing very cool research. I would definitly check it out if I were you. They get my vote as respectful of diverse cultural influences, open minded, and progressive.


Loma Linda University (San Bernardino). Also a psych department full of wonderful open minded people doing great things for the world. 7th Day Adventism highly values preventative health and excellent vegan nutrition.

Just do it.

Thanks. I agree. Are you at U of Arizona or Loma Linda?