Would You Do It?

[winnie bear]

---

Members don't see this ad.

If a school required you to sign a contractual agreement as part of being accepted into the program to commit a certain number of hours per month (say, 1 day a month) to volunteer at various nonprofit hospitals(*) after graduating and becoming licensed, how would you feel about it?

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?
2. Would you be for or against it?
3. If you're for it, how many hours a month is reasonable?
4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision?

Thanks in advance for your participation!🙂

(*) Should you move out of the area, you have the option of fulfilling your hours at any of the nonprofit clinics within reasonable distance from your new residence.

 

[Eigenkitty]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Definitely not. It would actually encourage me because the school's philosophy is in line with my own.

2. Would you be for or against it?

I would be for it because physicians often get caught up in this country's business, which is making money for the individual. I can't exactly blame doctors, especially new doctors, because this has been the system for a long time. With the cost of a medical education on the rise, paying off educational debt is a major concern for doctors. However, that is a problem in and of itself. Doctors should not be living with so much debt. Doctors should also not be more concerned with their paycheck than with providing people with quality healthcare. Both of these problems can be solved by institutions. Through this pro bono initiative, doctors get to reconnect with the roots of medical philosophy and treat those that go without treatment. Institutions in turn, should make it easier for doctors to pay off their bills by either decreasing tuition or providing more grants.

3. If you're for it, how many hours a month is reasonable?

Let's not limit ourselves! Doctors should be making that judgment on their own and in good faith. Not everyone is the same, not everyone has the same time commitments. Some physicians may have more time than others. As long as doctors are aware of their responsibility and providing nonprofit healthcare, their institution should be satisfied. If a doctor makes no effort to respect this responsibility, then the institution should do somethin' about it...

 

[winnie bear]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Definitely not. It would actually encourage me because the school's philosophy is in line with my own.

2. Would you be for or against it?

I would be for it because physicians often get caught up in this country's business, which is making money for the individual. I can't exactly blame doctors, especially new doctors, because this has been the system for a long time. With the cost of a medical education on the rise, paying off educational debt is a major concern for doctors. However, that is a problem in and of itself. Doctors should not be living with so much debt. Doctors should also not be more concerned with their paycheck than with providing people with quality healthcare. Both of these problems can be solved by institutions. Through this pro bono initiative, doctors get to reconnect with the roots of medical philosophy and treat those that go without treatment. Institutions in turn, should make it easier for doctors to pay off their bills by either decreasing tuition or providing more grants.

3. If you're for it, how many hours a month is reasonable?

Let's not limit ourselves! Doctors should be making that judgment on their own and in good faith. Not everyone is the same, not everyone has the same time commitments. Some physicians may have more time than others. As long as doctors are aware of their responsibility and providing nonprofit healthcare, their institution should be satisfied. If a doctor makes no effort to respect this responsibility, then the institution should do somethin' about it...

Response to your feedback sent to you via PM. Thank you for participating!

 

[MilkmanAl]

It wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but I definitely would not like to have volunteerism forced on me. Med school requires enough sacrifices without having to fritter away your precious free time somewhere you don't necessarily want to be. As I see it, you're already essentially giving up your 20's so you can help people professionally, so requiring more than that seems almost barbaric. That said, if the school was my only option, I'd deal with it. If I had other options, I'd exercise them.

 

[Catalystik]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school? NO
2. Would you be for or against it? Neutral
3. If you're for it, how many hours a month is reasonable? 8 seems fine
4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision? I'll express the concern that everyone would not have malpractice insurance that covers one outside of one's "day job," so malpractice would need to be covered by the clinic one is giving time to in such cases.

Or, that the agreement should include government facilities like Native American clinics, and Public health clinics where malpractice is covered.

And, it might also include humanitarian work at international locations, where malpractice coverage isn't a concern, or community free clinics (sometimes affiliated with med schools and providing teaching opportunities).

Also, that the time given could be for larger blocks once a year.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I would be for it because physicians often get caught up in this country's business, which is making money for the individual...Doctors should also not be more concerned with their paycheck than with providing people with quality healthcare. Both of these problems can be solved by institutions.

Not trying to thread jack, but I've read through a few of your posts here since reading your WAMC thread, and you've hinted at this a few times. Couple of quick questions: do you think that it's physician greed that is the primary problem with our health care system? Who specifically should decide what how much money physicians make? What effect do you think a change like you advocate to the incentive structure would have on physician talent? Why do you think that institutions, basically all of which loudly espouse their philanthropic bona fides, aren't currently forcing their house staffs to volunteer a certain amount of their free time to indigent care?

 

[Pons Asinorum]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Yes. I'm paying this educational institution an incredible sum of money to provide me a service, not to have them force post-graduation requirements on my time upon me.

2. Would you be for or against it?

Against it. I get to decide how and when I volunteer my time.

4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision?

If signing this "contract" was a requirement, I wouldn't apply. I also wouldn't apply to somewhere like Loma Linda, which has a similar "contract" that must be submitted with your secondary. I'm not paying a school $200k to become contractually bound to perform advocacy at their direction, even if I agree with that advocacy. Just not part of the service I'm paying for.

And OP, you edited your post to remove from your asterisked addendums to the contract that there was absolutely no enforcement or mechanism to affect you if you didn't perform the service; basically the school was powerless to actually compel you to perform the volunteer service. Why did you edit that part out?

 

[tweek125]

not for it. as MilkmanAl said, giving up your 20's should be enough. what will they want next, your soul?

also, what happens if you sign the contract and DON'T volunteer, will they take your license away?

 

[Suenya]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Slightly, but it wouldn't be a deal-breaker. It probably lines up easily with my planned career so much that it wouldn't have an effect on me. I'd probably try to convince the administration to change it though for people entering after me.

2. Would you be for or against it?

Strongly against it.

3. If you're for it, how many hours a month is reasonable?

4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision?
First, aside from my negative feelings about the program, 1 day a month is vague as to how many years this goes on for in the future. Does someone have to then work when they're retired or be sued? 1 year? 10 years? 30 years? There's a huge difference. There's also the problem if someone has limited ability to work due to an accident, or wants to take off a few months for maternity leave etc. Flexibility and length of the requirement are very important. By saying I would go, I am assuming that the requirement would "be cool" about all sorts of things that could affect working as a physician in general, and that the length of time is reasonable.

General objections though:
It's hard enough to go through medical training as it is, and there's already a strong enough monopoly on feasible medical education (coming from outside the US raises plenty of barriers, even if they are surmountable) that I wouldn't want to see this spread. I don't like people being forced to do something just so they can be a doctor, there's enough of that BS already.

I would prefer an optional program that reduced total cost (if not enough to cover the loss in wages) of attendance for those that were interested in working in a free clinic some amount of time. If the medical education system was one with more real competition and fewer barriers to entry, I would feel more okay with some schools having this requirement... but medical education is an industry with incredible regulatory barriers, and I really don't like the idea of people being forced to work without pay to become a doctor. If someone gets into one school, or if enough schools take this up, it's pretty much at that point where it's not volunteering, but a forced cost to become a physician. I think that get's pretty immoral, honestly.

 

[mvenus929]

I'm against it, mostly because I feel that this would influence the ability for people to make choices about their own careers. For instance, if someone did rural medicine, and the closest actual hospital was an hour (or more) away, would you make them drive that distance, even though they're providing a service for that population that wasn't there otherwise?

There's also the issue of followup... I probably want to practice in a state hundreds of miles from the one I'm going to school in. Should they be required to followup with me to make sure that I'm doing that volunteering once a month? And what if I want to have a kid and take some time of to raise the child? What if I get put on bedrest for months because of pregnancy and can't fulfill the requirement? Would I have my license revoked?

Don't get me wrong, I do think doctors should volunteer their time as well, but I do not think that it should be forced by the school, or residency, or whatever. That doesn't make it volunteering anymore... it makes it forced, unpaid work. People tend to resent that.

 

[DrYoda]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Yep. There are 120-some other school out there who don't have any BS attached.

2. Would you be for or against it?

Against.

4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision?

Mostly that I'm opposed to the concept of forced "volunteering".

 

[modsar]

1. Would this requirement deter you from applying to that school?

Yes

2. Would you be for or against it?

I don't think it's a bad thing, but it would not be for me so I would not attend.

4. If you're against it, what are some of the factors that would influence your decision?

I would not want to make that commitment so far in advance.

Thanks in advance for your participation!🙂
You're welcome