Why the emphasis on volunteering?

[trinitrotoluene]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Coming back to volunteering, I noticed a few people mentioned the apparant contradiction in being forced to volunteer, or volunteering for ulterior motives. From a purely practical position, however, it doesn't really matter why people volunteer. Volunteer service is needed in many ways, so whatever the actual motives it is helpful.

I could not disagree more. Let's look at one reason someone else gave for volunteering: "Being a volunteer is one way to show that you've gone beyond your middle-class cocoon and learned first hand about the life-style of the poor and downtrodden." If you are volunteering for that reason, then you are really just engaging in volunteer voyeurism.

That said, I also know of situations in which volunteer positions are created simply to meet the needs of people who want to volunteer, meaning that extra resources are used just to allow more people to volunteer.

Considering the population that you want to help, wouldn't it be better to invest these resources in something that will really help them like increased health benifits or lower health prices instead of satistifing the adcoms' volunteer lust?

 

[Shredder]

Do any top schools eschew this silliness? I need to apply to them. Starting a business would be ten times more effective than volunteering, but it's never mentioned among things that should be done as a premed. Research, volunteerism, shadowing, yep. And they say they want diversity. It's time diversity moved beyond skin color.

 

[trinitrotoluene]

but compassion is so very important..that is not to diminish the importance of working the political arena to increase health coverage for indegent patients. I think that example is an extreme and adcoms may not care so much of one working a political platform for a candidate but if you did really work to improve healthcare i'd be surprised if they frowned at it. 😕

Again, why does working with a particular campaign, candidate, or platform deminish a person's contribution? Believing that anything other than government action will lead to universal or near-universal health coverage is a delusion. How can one help people obtain benifits except through government action? Private business won't, and private charities are streched too thin.

Edit: BTW, you don't have to work for a liberal/progressive to get credit. If I was on an adcom, I would support an applicant who campaigned for increased access to health savings accounts for admission. The question is providing access and who is working to provide that access.

 

[Shredder]

Whoa! Down with big government and high taxes--conservatives unite!

 

[trinitrotoluene]

As an applicant and a patient, I would say that ability really does trump all other considerations in making a good doctor. I have had really great humanitarian doctors who came within a hair's breath of killing me; I don't see them anymore. However, there are also highly skilled doctors who called me a c**ksucker; I don't see them either. Compassion is to the MCAT Writing like ability is to the rest of the test. Having a 42 is far better than having a 32; but having a T is not really much better than having a P. Then again, having an M is really bad like having a 25 is really bad.

 

[tigress]

Frankly, this thread is enough to bring out the misanthrope in anyone. I don't know what sickens me more: people who think that medicine or even research is merely an intellectually interesting career, or people who think that being an effective doctor means devoting one's entire life to serving others. 🙄 Can't we have some balance here?

I agree. I agreed with elements of the OP's first post, but now I think it's become extreme. I certainly want compassionate doctors, and I think it's an important quality. What I agree with is that "helping people" doesn't need to be our primary motivation for becoming a doctor. Sometimes I read things on this forum that make it seem as if those of us who don't want to sacrifice to spend our entire lives in humanitarian pursuits aren't good enough people. As a matter of fact I love the idea of serving humanity, working with indigent populations, working in third world countries...but then again, I'm selfish enough, or perhaps just normal, that I want to have a good steady life with a family, a lawn, and a dog.

I'm being defensive here, I suppose. I just think, like QofQuimica said, that there has to be a balance between lofty ideals and the reality for most people. And I do think that going into medicine for primarily intellectual reasons is great, as long as you're also compassionate.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

What in the hell makes you think that that a computer can make a life saving, spur of the moment decision concerning someone’s life. Computers go on statistics and calculations. That is it. Nothing more nothing less. I do believe technology will get better. However, you sound plain sill running around talking about how computers will one day take over the field of medicine a replace talented physicians. Honestly, do you want the life of your child in the hands of stupid computer or a competent physician? Have you ever seen that movie I-Robot with Will Smith. In the movie he had a chip on his shoulder towards the robots because they made a poor decision based on calculations and probability and in return saved his life over a little girls because he statistically had a higher probability of survival. I know this is a corny example but I think it makes sense.

You also need to realize that we are humans, we are not God. You need to also realize that everything is inevitably in Gods hands. It's not in the hands of the talented physicians, the nurses, and certainly not some damn computer. How dare you criticize a doctor praying in a moment when he is responsible for someone's life and actually has the time to do it. We usually do it before they even role the patient in. When you have successfully dealt with a situation in which someone's life is in you hands then you can judge a doctor for realizing that he can only do his best and sometimes that's not enough. For your information, He is one of the best cardiologists in the South. I've seen him in at least three health promotion magazines. He's not a quack, just in case you were wondering.

Yours,
Caraway

great post 👍

 

[tigress]

Considering the population that you want to help, wouldn't it be better to invest these resources in something that will really help them like increased health benifits or lower health prices instead of satistifing the adcoms' volunteer lust?

Yes, which is why, as I said, my volunteer experience is not clinical. I have spent time on political campaigns working for these very things. I was just pointing out that you have to evaluate the volunteer position you are taking to see whether it's actually helpful or just volunteering for the sake of volunteering. If you're filling a spot that was created not out of need but because they had to put extra volunteers somewhere, you aren't do much.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

And I think you need a reality check. Wait until you have kids and one of them needs emergency surgery at some point. I can guarantee you'll care much more about how *good* the surgeon is than whether he's a nice guy or a good reader of bedtime stories. The biggest prick in the hospital can also be the best doctor in the hospital (and this is actually the case more than you'd expect) if his rotten personality doesn't interfere with his ability to fix patients' problems.

and i don't see why a doctor can't be both..i've certainly met plenty that exhibited both compassion and skill. that's the kind of doctor i would select any time for my kids or any family member.

 

[cfdavid]

The simple fact is that being a physician is a job. As long as a person can see themselves happy in a career which, in most specialties, involves interacting with human beings for the majority of your working hours (often quite intimately), then so be it.

It's true that market forces are calling for doctors that are perceived as taking time and showing an appropriate amount of concern for the patient. Communication is key, as it is in almost any job. So is listening.

If you can do those things/have those basic skills under those conditions, and will be happy doing it, then the more power to you, regardless of what truly motivates you to seek a career in life.

We all have our reasons for wanting to become physicians. But, there's absolutely no single reason that's "better" than any other.

 

[clc8503]

The simple fact is that being a physician is a job. As long as a person can see themselves happy in a career which, in most specialties, involves interacting with human beings for the majority of your working hours (often quite intimately), then so be it.

It's true that market forces are calling for doctors that are perceived as taking time and showing an appropriate amount of concern for the patient. Communication is key, as it is in almost any job. So is listening.

If you can do those things/have those basic skills under those conditions, and will be happy doing it, then the more power to you, regardless of what truly motivates you to seek a career in life.

We all have our reasons for wanting to become physicians. But, there's absolutely no single reason that's "better" than any other.

Any reason is better than the one posted by vmc303 This guy sounds as though he thinks that being a physician gives someone a license to be an ***hole. These are the doctors you should never see. However, I don't think we will have to worry about him practicing medicine any time soon. He could never pass an interview with his sour attitude and lack of care. That is unless he lies all though the interview. I don't think he will fool them though. Interviewers can usually spot a lier.

Yours,
Caraway

 

[trinitrotoluene]

clc8503:

You had better watch out. Current trends are moving away from the intutive approach and towards an evidence, statistics, and probibility based approach. Patients treated by cold numbers seem to have better outcomes and consume less resources than patients treated under traditional approaches. Indeed, computers are consistantly beating doctors in several medical problem domains.

 

[Shredder]

Any reason is better than the one posted by vmc303 This guy sounds as though he thinks that being a physician gives someone a license to be an ***hole. These are the doctors you should never see. However, I don't think we will have to worry about him practicing medicine any time soon. He could never pass an interview with his sour attitude and lack of care. That is unless he lies all though the interview. I don't think he will fool them though. Interviewers can usually spot a lier.

Yours,
Caraway

Hogwash. vmc303 is clearly sharp and presents good arguments. The essence is that it's better to have a skilled prick than an inept nice guy. clc how old are you...get out of pre allo now and then to visit other forums. I can't believe how huffy and puffy you and some other people get about this.

 

[clc8503]

Hogwash. vmc303 is clearly sharp and presents good arguments. The essence is that it's better to have a skilled prick than an inept nice guy. clc how old are you...get out of pre allo now and then to visit other forums. I can't believe how huffy and puffy you and some other people get about this.

Perhaps I was out of line. Cut me some slack I've been in the freaken library all day. Every time I posted on here today was during my study breaks. Once again I apologize to vmc303.

Yours,
Caraway

 

[Psycho Doctor]

clc8503:

You had better watch out. Current trends are moving away from the intutive approach and towards an evidence, statistics, and probibility based approach. Patients treated by cold numbers seem to have better outcomes and consume less resources than patients treated under traditional approaches. Indeed, computers are consistantly beating doctors in several medical problem domains.

well it's no wonder if the trend for doctors is what has been exhibited on this thread. medicine without patient care somehow loses it's perspective. perhaps i am in the wrong field if i thought i could actually care about my patients and treat their whole person rather than just some malignant cells.

 

[trinitrotoluene]

well it's no wonder if the trend for doctors is what has been exhibited on this thread. medicine without patient care somehow loses it's perspective. perhaps i am in the wrong field if i thought i could actually care about my patients and treat their whole person rather than just some malignant cells.

Well, computers are really only good at diagnosing one thing at a time. A properally designed and executed artifical neural network outperforms the best doctors at determining if a patient has cancer for example, but cannot integrate cancer treatment into an overall health-care plan. It's a matter off balance that this thread has totally failed to grasp and has gone out of its way to avoid.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

You can care a lot about making a person better or fixing their problems without actually caring about *them* as a person.

Actually, this is not true. Caring about the person really adds to the care they receive from you as a physician. Ask a good, caring doctor about this and that is what he will tell you. I took a class called Literature and Medicine and much of the focus on the class was on empathy and it implications for patient care. Dr. Vanatta, one of the instructors who is a physician and once was the dean of the University of Oklahoma Medical College talked a lot about that, and he would definately tell you that caring about the person really makes a difference in that person's care.

 

[vmc303]

Actually, this is not true. Caring about the person really adds to the care they receive from you as a physician. Ask a good, caring doctor about this and that is what he will tell you. I took a class called Literature and Medicine and much of the focus on the class was on empathy and it implications for patient care. Dr. Vanatta, one of the instructors who is a physician and once was the dean of the University of Oklahoma Medical College talked a lot about that, and he would definately tell you that caring about the person really makes a difference in that person's care.

I take it you also believe praying over a patient from 1,000 miles away works wonders too. Are there any studies which purport to show that a doctor's "caring for a patient" actually improves clinical outcomes, controlling for skill level, time invested, attention to detail, etc.? These are all part of being a professional and doing a job well. Compassion for a patient improves patient care insofar as it might motivate a doctor to put more effort into his work, sticking around past 4 pm rather than rushing out to try to get in 9 holes of golf. But the reason the care is better has little to do with his own feelings toward the patient -- it has to do with doing a better job. For some people, maybe an emotional connection with a patient is what's needed to motivate them to be a good doctor. Others might be motivated by more intrinsic things -- pride in one's work, job satisfaction, intellectual interest, work ethic. One certainly doesn't need to be a profound humanitarian to take pride in his job and do it well.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Don't assume what I believe by a single post you've read by me. I guess the difference in our opinion lies in what we think physicians should do for their patients. Curing someone who is ill by utilizing the science of medicine is one thing that physicians are trained to do. If that is what you believe the extent of what it is a physician's obligation to do, then I guess you could say you are correct. But being a physician can be more than just making a person feel better physically. And although it is not scientifically proven, a lot of physicians will tell you that "caring about the person," that is really getting to know the person, where he is coming from, and thus empathizing with that person, can increase your ability to make accurate diagnoses and address the real cause of the ailment, such as problems at home or at work that lead to stress that lead to hypertension that lead to heart attack and so on. Like other posters have said, patients expect more from their doctor than just curing a disease. If you doubt me, trying reading the play "Wit." You will see that empathy does make a difference. It doesn't have to be proven by a scientific study. And being able to empathize with people is probably linked to meaningful volunteer and service-based experiences.


I found this article about patient-physician interactions and empathy. I couldn't access the entire article, but here's the abstract:

Integration of Cognition and Emotion: A Postformal Operations Model of Physician-Patient Interaction
Kelly R. Morton , Joanna S. Worthley, Stephen R. Nitch, Henry H. Lamberton, Lawrence K. Loo and John K. Testerman


Abstract We modeled Labouvie-Vief's description of the integration of emotion and cognition in postformal thought in young adults by assessing tolerance for ambiguity (TFA) and empathy development in medical students to examine their effects on clinical behaviors. In this 4-year longitudinal study, 133 freshmen medical students were assessed on tolerance for ambiguity at Time 1, and 90 of these were assessed on empathy as juniors at Time 2. At Time 3, 66 seniors were again assessed on empathy, and 61 of these were assessed on physician-patient interactions. Results showed that our postformal operations model was a good fit for the data. TFA (indirect) and empathy (direct) predicted standardized patients' ratings of medical students across eight clinical encounters. The examination of transitions within specific postformal stages offers a promising approach to theory refinement.

By the way, due to my personal beliefs, I don't pray for anyone. But I do believe that prayer, positive thinking, meditation, or whatever you want to call it is effective when coping with disease or hardship, whether is cures the disease or gets rid of the problem or not. And I'm pretty sure that there are scientific studies to support that.

 

[scootad.]

sorry, but just b/c patients' may rate their provider higher (i.e. like them better) merely b/c the provider shows empathy doesnt prove anything about the provider's competence/ability to make accurate diagnoses.

i know that when i get sick, i want someone who knows what the hell they're doing, not someone all "im sorry you feel that way, you must feel awful, blah blah blah." ever watch House, M.D. That doc is hella cool (although I admit the show is totally unrealistic). He wont take any **** from his patients.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

wasn't saying that empathy makes one a more "competent" physician.

 

[velo]

This debate has polarized people into absolutely ridiculous positions that they probably wouldn't be taking if they weren't arguing against equally radical counterarguments.

There's a middle ground. Of course gross competency and ability should be the first concern for a physician in training. But that doesn't mean that compassion and empathy aren't useful and admirable qualities for a physician to possess. A highly skilled, yet cold, surgeon is a good doctor. An equally skilled yet compassionate surgeon is a better doctor, who will have a reduced chance of facing litigation, have a stronger relationship with his patients, and be more likely to illicit small yet important pieces of information from the patient who might otherwise feel too intimidated to share them. Like I've said three times now in this thread, top three qualities for a doc to have, in order, are affability, availability, and ability...most patients assume a baseline level of ability out of anyone with MD after their name, so that makes 1 & 2 the most important in most of their books.

This is all beside the point of this thread though, and that is the dubious assumtion that volunteering during undergrad somehow means you are/will be a more compassionate and caring doctor when you get into practice. Show me a group of skilled compassionate doctors and I'll show you some who were volunteers and some who were not...same thing with the cold detatched physicians. The fact that you did or did not volunteer as an undergrad is not predictive of how compassionate of a doctor you will be no matter how much some posters around here would like to believe it is.

 

[clc8503]

I can settle this argument once and for all. If you are surgeon and your patient is anesthetized it is okay to be an ***hole as long as you are competent and do a good job. If you are an emergency medicine physician, you can be an ***hole. Finally, if you are a radiologist and have little to no contact with patients, you can be an ***hole. That being said, If you are in primary care (family practice, internal med, pediatrics), you need to be polite to your patients. This means caring for them as a complete person, not an individual illness. If you are a surgeon, radiologist, EM med, maybe even OB/GYN, you can be however rude you want, and people will see you because they probably do not have another option. However, if you are in primary care and treat your patients like ****, you will find yourself with little to no business. The nurses will even hate working with you. Remember, unless you are in something that’s really competitive, the public can see another physician other than you. Always keep this in mind. The public does have a choice. I feel kind of silly debating what doctors can get away with treating their patients like scum. I do know I would not be their patient.

Yours,
Caraway

 

[velo]

I can settle this argument once and for all. If you are surgeon and your patient is anesthetized it is okay to be an ***hole as long as you are competent and do a good job. If you are an emergency medicine physician, you can be an ***hole. Finally, if you are a radiologist and have little to no contact with patients, you can be an ***hole. That being said, If you are in primary care (family practice, internal med, pediatrics), you need to be polite to your patients. This means caring for them as a complete person, not an individual illness. If you are a surgeon, radiologist, EM med, maybe even OB/GYN, you can be however rude you want, and people will see you because they probably do not have another option. However, if you are in primary care and treat your patients like ****, you will find yourself with little to no business. The nurses will even hate working with you. Remember, unless you are in something that’s really competitive, the public can see another physician other than you. Always keep this in mind. The public does have a choice. I feel kind of silly debating what doctors can get away with treating their patients like scum. I do know I would not be their patient.

Yours,
Caraway

Hm, I still wouldn't completely agree with this. In many cases people have a choice of who performs their surgery and you have to deal with patients in clinic, pre-op, and post-op. In OB/GYN the patients, again, have a choice and in a speciality as litigation-happy as OB/GYN I'm surprised you would say that being rude to your patients has no consequences.

As for no-patient-contact fields like rads (although you do see patients for procedures in some areas of rads) and path, or in areas where the patient has no choice about who they see (EM/trauma surgery); sure you CAN be an dingus if you really want to. But even if it doesn't affect patient care (which is unlikely) you'll get along with your colleagues better if you're not a douchebag.

I appreciate some of the initial sentiment of the thread and the thread title...but the position I get behind is "undergrad volunteering is in no way predictive of your effectiveness as a physician," whereas you have moved to "you can be an dingus and be a perfectly fine doctor." I see your point, and there are plenty of perfectly capable doctors who are pricks, but I still say that all else being equal there are very pragmatic reasons why a more compassionate "nicer" physician is better...

 

[clc8503]

Hm, I still wouldn't completely agree with this. In many cases people have a choice of who performs their surgery and you have to deal with patients in clinic, pre-op, and post-op. In OB/GYN the patients, again, have a choice and in a speciality as litigation-happy as OB/GYN I'm surprised you would say that being rude to your patients has no consequences.

As for no-patient-contact fields like rads (although you do see patients for procedures in some areas of rads) and path, or in areas where the patient has no choice about who they see (EM/trauma surgery); sure you CAN be an dingus if you really want to. But even if it doesn't affect patient care (which is unlikely) you'll get along with your colleagues better if you're not a douchebag.

I appreciate some of the initial sentiment of the thread and the thread title...but the position I get behind is "undergrad volunteering is in no way predictive of your effectiveness as a physician," whereas you have moved to "you can be an dingus and be a perfectly fine doctor." I see your point, and there are plenty of perfectly capable doctors who are pricks, but I still say that all else being equal there are very pragmatic reasons why a more compassionate "nicer" physician is better...

I completly agree

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Well, computers are really only good at diagnosing one thing at a time. A properally designed and executed artifical neural network outperforms the best doctors at determining if a patient has cancer for example, but cannot integrate cancer treatment into an overall health-care plan. It's a matter off balance that this thread has totally failed to grasp and has gone out of its way to avoid.

i guess you failed to realize i was being sarcastic....??

 

[HopeFaith]

Well I can’t really blame anyone.
Many people are only interested in becoming doctors because it presents a challenge to them and they love science. As for me, the bigger reward is knowing that I'm helping another individual by possibly saving their life.
I believe community service is an important factor because the fact of the matter is even as a doctor, you will be performing a service for members of the community. You may not agree with this but I believe being a doctor should be about serving your patients, not just yourself. If you really are a misanthropist and there is a possibility that you will treat your patients like lab rats, then why not get a PhD and lock yourself up in a lab somewhere? I would have to agree that this all depends on the type of medicine you choose to practice.
If you go on to become a good doctor then more power to you. I guess as long as you're good at what you do, that's what matters. But you never know, with an attitude like that, you will most likely alienate your colleges as well as your patients. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to go the extra mile.

 

[velo]

I believe community service is an important factor because the fact of the matter is even as a doctor, you will be performing a service for members of the community. You may not agree with this but I believe being a doctor should be about serving your patients, not just yourself. If you really are a misanthropist and there is a possibility that you will treat your patients like lab rats, then why not get a PhD and lock yourself up in a lab somewhere?

I will ressurect this thread to point out a few fallacies that this post is based on...

1) Premeds who do volunteer to do community service as undergrads do so because they're compassionate, benevolent people

2) If you don't volunteer you're an uncaring person

3) There is some analogy between A) a caring compassionate physician providing expert medical care to a patient and being paid well to do it, and B) a person volunteering to perform a menial "community service" job of questionable necessity presumably out of the goodness of his heart. Furthermore if you're not willing to do B you'll be no good at A.

false
false
false

 

[Shredder]

👍

 

[meehawl]

A doctor's calling is to save lives, not make people feel good, leave that for nurses. I think proficiency should be exalted far above passion to heal and all that.

That's a fairly limited and old-fashioned (not to say condescending!) idea of the role of nursing staff.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

That's a fairly limited and old-fashioned (not to say condescending!) idea of the role of nursing staff.

exactly 👍

besides both physicians and nurses are both proficient and skilled in their professions and should also be caring and compassionate and should want to make their patients feel good.