while that is a practical idea, i dont think 18 year old kids are ready to make that commitment. while there are a handfull of students who know 100% that they want to be doctors and do eventually succeed. the vast majority of students who think they are going to be doctors change their minds once they realize how much work it really is...
I agree with a few of the statements here. First of all, you don't have to be "smart" to get into med school. However, you do have to work hard and be willing to go through rigorous training. I have many friends who didn't get things quickly, but they were able to spend more time and know more than others. We don't need doctors to be geniuses; we just need them to be experts at their respective specialities. Of course, this requires an insane amount of knowledge and good training. I'm afraid of the universal healthcare system because of a few reasons. First of all, what will happen to the salaries of pharmacists and doctors? If doctors get paid the same, or have a scaled salary, would they still spend a few more years doing fellowships for specialty areas? Also, would the quality of doctors decrease? Secondly, how will this affect the economy in pharmaceutical companies' perspective? I'm thinking about getting an MBA at a top-5 school after pharmacy school. I don't know if big pharms can sustain their profits after this.
Who do you think will be making drugs if pharma companies don't have adequate incentive? I'd like to see cures for many horrible diseases in my lifetime.
There is a huge difference in adequate incentive and ass raping. There is nothing wrong with making a buck. There is absolutely something wrong with taking advantage of the situation.
i agree with you but where the layman would say big pharm is making too much money, they dont see how much time and effort is invested into bringing a drug to market. there should be a certain cap but im afraid big pharm wouldnt feel the desire to develop new drugs w/o the big profit incentive. its a catch 22.
Big pharm does not pay for the vast majority of research. Tax money does and then the pharmaceutical companies make the profit..
i dunno. id say its a combination of smarts and work ethic. youd have to have a certain amount of each to make it.
I am not saying you can be dumb and get into med school. I am just saying being doctor is not like doing quantum mechanics where objects don't have defined properties. In medicine you just have to be willing to work at it and memorize a lot of things and be thorough. The us spend highest per capita amount on healthcare of any country in the world, but we are usually ranked 15-20. Most of the top countries only require their doctors to go to school for six years. You can't say that the US has the best doctors when there is no real empirical evidence to back it up. If we can't have the best doctors, might as well let more graduate so at least they are more affordable.
Please do not assume this. I'm almost done with pharmacy school and I have done numerous drug information projects and have looked at more than 300-400 articles. They'll give you the funding information in these articles. Most of the time, if there is a new drug, the research comes from the pharmaceutical companies. Clinical trials often take 15-20 years since you have to prove both the drug's safety and effectiveness before a trial can even be performed on humans. Research in labs would take anywhere between 5-10 years, if not more for a drug. Pre-clinical research where they test on non-human subjects would take a while too. Then you'd have phase I and phase II studies where they test for safety and efficacy. Finally, phase III trials can be done. You would have to fulfill your sample size in order to have enough power (evidence) for a particular study. This may take 3-5 years, if not more. So basically, if there is not incentive for companies to find new drugs, why would they even try? Yes, they're making some money, but at the same time, patients do reap the benefits as well. Just to let you know, profits for the last few years have gone wayyyyyyy down for the big pharms.
Hmm...does that 6 years include undergraduate studies as well? In the US, you have to do 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and at least 3 years of residency. If you want to specialize, you have to do 1-4 years for a fellowship. This is 11-15 years of training that you can only get in the US, with at least 7-11 of them focused on what you need to know.
thank you for this insight. most people see the profit column on big pharms financial records and say that theyre making too much money. but they fail to realize just how much work and time goes into bringing a drug to market. they probably also dont realize that the majority of drugs dont even make it to market bc they fail during one of the phases of testing. im sure the gov funds a lot of the research. but i doubt they fund the majority. if that were the case, theyd own royalty rights to the drugs and would make a certain percentage of each sell. i think the gov. most likely sees needs for certain drugs and offers subsidies to entice the pharm companies to try to develop new/safer/better drugs.
the human body is a mystery. id say the current knowledge we have is probably about 1%. we may understand how it works but we have yet to scratch the surface on why it works. (im sure this is the case in most other scientific fields...) rote memorization is important but if thats all that it takes to be a doctor, then by now, theyd all be replaced by computers and robots. w/o imagination and creativity medicine would not move foward. (e.i. developing new treatments, new medical equipment....) there is no empirical evidence to back up the US having the best doctors. every country has talented doctors, avg. doctors, and below avg doctors. yes, graduating more doctors would eventually make medicine cheaper. but then to do that, youd have to lower the standards. also, just bc more docs graduate from med school doesnt mean theyll get licensed (and therefore be able to practice). you also have to realize that most med schools are subsidized by state gov. training a student to become a doctor is not cheap! the student pays for tuition but that still is not enough to keep the school staffed and cover overhead. thats why schools want to accept students who they think will make it all the way through and get licensed. cause if they dont get all the way through, its a waste of time/money/effort by not only the student, but the school and the state gov... another way to reduce the cost of medicine would be to protect doctors from litigation. that right there would probably dramatically drop the cost of medicine. in some instances, the doctor is clearly negligent and should be held responsible. but there are far too many cases of predatory litigation by a patient who wants to make a quick buck.
I would agree with you if I had actually experienced this. I've never been in a doctors office where I've actually spent more than 15 minutes with a real doctor. Most of the time, its waiting and talking to medical techs and nurses. I think the problem with our medical system is that we don't give nurses and pharmacist enough power. In almost every other country, you can go to the pharmacist, tell them what your symptoms are and they give you some medicine. In the US, I have to to the doctor, waste 2 hours of my time, spend 120 bucks, to get a prescription for something that I have been prescribed before tens of times.
No kidding. I know I need to waste an entire half day to go see a doctor to get my asthma medicine. It's a joke.
The most medical innovation does occur in the US. Why do you see people from all over the world flying to the Texas Medical Center to have procedures done? Sure there are other great places to have medical care, but few would argue that the US isn't the best place to have the best care. I'm sure some countries have great training, but I'd prefer not to have a heart operation in Jamaica or Mexico. No thanks.
very very true. i think as we move foward, we'll be seeing a lot more PA (physicians assistants). i think MD's will move into more of a managerial role where they look over the charts and give the green light to the PA or decide to do further tests... the scary part about this is that PA's dont have to have residency training. books learning is one thing but hands on training is another. not too sure on the specifics for PA's but... 1. they also have to attend 4 yrs of med school 2. no residency 3. no liability insurance 4. same authority as a MD but they cant write prescriptions and dont have the final say.
