Women in medicine

[Devari]

MacLean's article:

 

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080102_122329_6200&source=srch

 

 

CMAJ response:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/6/659

 

Thanks for the links, they were very helpful. Having read both articles it seems that my initial expectations were pretty accurate, in fact, if anything I found the Maclean's article to be of a substantially lower quality than I was expecting (even though my expectations weren't very high to begin with). The repeated attempts to blame women in medicine for the physician shortage were actually rather amusing because the author kept using anecdotes without providing a compelling or well-supported argument. Criticising women for taking time off during pregnancy or to raise a family is really rather retarded. It wasn't something I thought was particularly offensive, though, because the author's argument was simply too weak to give any serious consideration to.

[Devari]

Critical reading needs to go way up. I never said men and women should spend equal time in their careers and I never said that we should ensure physicians work the highest possible number of hours.

 

You weren't particularly clear about exactly what you were referring to in your posts, which is why I made a point of clarifying the discussion by addressing these specific issues. Try to be more specific about what you’re referring to next time.

 

"there isn't necessarily a problem" Well reporters wouldn't be doing stories about this issue if there wasn't a doctor shortage.

 

You might want to improve your own critical reading skills here. I was clearly referring to the difference between the hours worked by male and female physicians when I said that this wasn't necessary a problem that requires fixing. I was not referring to the general shortage of physicians in Canada, which is a much larger issue and obviously needs to be addressed. In fact, I've already discussed several aspects of this problem in the other posts I’ve made in this thread.

 

It's very nice that people are helping you out with spoon fed links,

 

How does providing links to articles that are no longer currently available equate to being "spoon fed" something? It's not like the issues are currently on newstands and I was simply unwilling to get them myself. In fact, at the start of this thread I asked which issues these articles are in so I could try to track them down myself if they were still available.

 

and it's great to look at issues from different perspectives, but if you really want to contribute to a discussion about an issue then you need to do your own reseacrh and actively read other posts.

 

I’ve read all the posts so far and I’ve made several detailed responses to the various issues that are being discussed in this thread. The tone of your posts, however, would seem to suggest that you're more interested in trolling rather than having a meaningful discussion. I'm perfectly happy trading insults with you if that’s what you’d prefer, but everyone else in this thread has remained polite and civil. I've been trying to remain polite and patient so far despite your attitude but if you can’t do the same then I’m going to start showing you the same disrespect that you're showing me.

[tallguy408]

Devari, you really need to stop the sentence by sentence dissection of everyone's posts. It just inflames things and really quashes good discussion. That being said, Devari, you have a LOT of good points here. Good to see.

 

Threadster, you would do well to quit being so dramatic (and sarcastic), and stick to the discussion topic (like Devari). Acting the way you are only demeans YOU, and really lowers the calibre of the discussion.

 

Women in medicine...Good? Unquestionably. They have brought about major reforms to a badly flawed system, and have helped to balance severe inequities and deficiencies in spectrum of care.

 

Is this worth the less time that they work, more time per patient etc.? Not a shred of doubt here, yes. You cannot ignore the benefit of a gender-balanced work force, particularly in medicine.

 

How can doctor shortages be solved in the face of less hours worked per physician? Tough question, but number one solution for sure: preventative medicine. One dollar into prevention is worth a thousand in tertiary care, at least. As much as we need more doctors, we need less people seeing them. Imagine the drop in patient load if we could drop obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and smoking by a modest 10%?? We need to be working on healthcare, not just treatment and diagnosis.

 

Just a few thoughts. Now, for all those who would be disappointed otherwise.....

 

Word.

[Devari]

Devari, you really need to stop the sentence by sentence dissection of everyone's posts. It just inflames things and really quashes good discussion.

 

The Devari 2008 campaign's official stance on using "enhanced forum discussion techniques" is that they should be used only when necessary and only when clearly defined criteria have been met. However, completely removing them from the list of permissible techniques may unduly affect national security and compromise our ability to protect our citizens from unsupported and irrational arguments.

[tallguy408]

Not impressed. Not at all.

 

Word.

[Wolvenstar]

well just to put in my two bits. Devari you did make some really good points. Threadster did have a point or two.....which he magnificently magnified and dramatized. If I were looking for a live play on women in medicine, a play full of excitement and action, I would deffinetely tell threadster to direct it. However this is a discussion about an article.

 

I can see how the article can be offensive, and indeed even I was offended even though I am male. Articles that bash women tend to make guys look bad in the end.

 

I have seen the statistics too, and female doctors do tend to work less than male doctors. But what does it matter? Well to the government it matters alot, because politics has no understanding whatsoever of quality. With them everything is quantity, quantity, quantity.

 

As if a male physcian works 1.5hrs a week more than a women (arbitrary number) really means that he gets that much more done, or helps significantly more people.

 

The problem with articles and statistics is that it generalizes the skills of everyone. I am not saying that one gender is more skilled than the other. I am saying that some individuals are more skilled than other individuals. Thus it doesn't matter if women work less than men in the medical field. Looking at the skills of physicians and the quality of service is much more productive when one wants find problems in the medical field.

 

If one wants to look at statistics than you need to generalize more, and stop looking at genders. One gender is better than the other. Frankly I would say that women are better, but that's cause I am a guy, and sometimes dream of living in a world which is inhabited by women only, and I am the lone guy....Anyways back to topic, it is a much more significant fact that statistically all doctors are working less than they were in the past. This means that even if we raised the number of doctors to the level that the past statistics would predict, we still wouldn't have enough doctors, as they are not working as much in the past.

 

It is a matter of training more physicians overall not restricting genders, and this is where the problem comes in. It costs money to train physicians and the government never wants to hand out money, let alone more money than they normally do.

 

 

 

 

I am also going to bring up the other Maclean's article on HPV, someone mentioned earlier in the thread, because it was lost in the heat of Devari's righteous fury.

 

Frankly I am disgusted by these conservative views on the HPV vacinations. Sure anyone would be disgusted in a 9 year old girl was having sex, but this isn't what the vaccine is about. It's about protecting women once they start having sex...they just need the vaccination when they are a child for it to be effective. Why can't the general populace just look at the facts for once, and not stampede around spouting conservative views, that stem from the religious views.

 

It's a vaccine, and it will protect women when they start having sex. That's the begining, middle, and end of it. All this nonsense about 9 year old suddenly having sex because they are getting another vaccination in school absurd. I worry for the future of our species.

[tallguy408]

Well said. Unfortunately, politics is something that gets put ahead of common sense or good medicine a surprising amount of the time.

 

Word.

[cluelesswonder]

great points, wolvenstar!

[Devari]

I am also going to bring up the other Maclean's article on HPV, someone mentioned earlier in the thread, because it was lost in the heat of Devari's righteous fury.

 

That brings up an interesting point. Exactly how hot is Devari's righteous fury? If it’s comparable to a thermite reaction (2500 degrees celsius) that means that I can liquefy a T-888 terminator endoskeleton with my internet posts.

[ccc]

Hi,

 

I read both articles a while ago and this is what I think:

 

"Frankly" I think it was unprofessional for the doctors to publish their response in CMAJ. The first article from Maclean's was ok, but why did the authors reply in CMAJ? Isn't CMAJ supposed to be a scientific journal? All I saw in their response was a retort of "stop being sexist" and their arguments were not very convincing. The Maclean's article gave evident/statistics showing why the health-care system is "less efficient" with female doctors. Instead of finding statistics to prove them otherwise, or looking for alternatives to solve the doctor crisis, the authors responded in CMAJ with statistics like "X% of doctors are female". What does that tell me?

 

Obviously, sexism is wrong but give me a break. I don't know who wrote the Maclean's article, but the CMAJ article was written by MDs. And using their language, it "frankly" did not impress me.

[tallguy408]

First, CMAJ is a scientific journal, but also a commentary journal and editorial board for medicine in Canada. Thus, it is entirely appropriate and logical to publish a rebuttal to the Maclean's article here.

 

What does the CMAJ article tell you? It tells you that some values in the fabric of society are not measureable by statistics. Women in medicine is a good thing. You can't prove it from an efficiency point of view (to the best of my knowledge), and a "satisfaction" survey would hardly do justice to the immense value women provide to medicine.

 

Stats are not needed here to counter the Maclean's article, nor is the proposition of an alternative solution necessary. The Maclean's article needed to be rebutted solely on the position of women in medicine being inefficient. This was done by the CMAJ article. I don't need stats or an alternative solution to write an article saying that the holocaust was a mistake. I know this is a drastically different scenario, but it illustrates my point well. At no point would I need stats on the value of jews to society or an alternative way of eliminating their presence to make my point. Same thing applies here. Women in medicine clearly are a positive change, regardless of any quantitative stat, because their qualitative benefit is overwhelming.

 

Word.

[Wolvenstar]

That brings up an interesting point. Exactly how hot is Devari's righteous fury? If it’s comparable to a thermite reaction (2500 degrees celsius) that means that I can liquefy a T-888 terminator endoskeleton with my internet posts.

 

Your righteous fury is hot enough to have me on my knees praying to the almighty for deliverance...............................................................................................................................with the almighty being science, and deliverance from ignorant people... but still it's hot. lol

[Satsuma]

The Maclean's article gave evident/statistics showing why the health-care system is "less efficient" with female doctors. Instead of finding statistics to prove them otherwise, or looking for alternatives to solve the doctor crisis

 

 

Statistics aren`t all they are cracked up to be and can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

There is a doctor shortage (and nurses and other professions). Women entering medicine are not the causal factor in this shortage. Seats were cut in the 90s when they should have been increased and now we are paying the price.

 

It is a time to come up with contructive solutions to this shortage. Suggesting that women contribute to the inefficiency of the healthcare system with the direct or indirect suggestion that the system would be more efficient with less women in medicine is not constructive. And eliminating women from medicine is not a realistic solution anyway.

 

If people want to play the blaming game the blame really belongs to the politicians of the day....I wonder how many of them were women?

[Wolvenstar]

If people want to play the blaming game the blame really belongs to the politicians of the day....I wonder how many of them were women?

 

I like everything you said, I whole heartedly agree that politicians are to blame, but I most whole heartedly have to look at that last part of your statement.

 

Perhaps it's just cause sparking controversy is fun, or because studying so much has been melting my brain, or because my university's female rights program decided to take a good idea and turn it into a horrible program.

 

Very few women run for politcal positions of any kind. Even less of those women get the position they have run for. Perhaps more women should try to get some sort of political position.

Do the majority of women not run because of some sort of sexism? No

Is the reason that very few of the women who actually ran for a position got the position due to sexism? No

What it because no one like their politcal platform? yes

Do we as a society need to be more fair and vote more women into positions of political power? No

Why? because we would be voting them into that position just because they were female not because of their platform. Voting is about getting the people into parliament who you think will help the country not what their gender is.

 

 

Should a female rights club advertise that more women need to be voted into decision making seats right before the election of the student's union president? Possibly but again only if the women has a good platform

 

Should the woman who decides to run for president of the student's union base her platform only on the fact that she is a women (ie: vote for me because I am a girl, but how no ideas on what to do with the student's union)

 

Did a women run for president of the student's union at my university and base her running solely on "I'm a women. I don't have any beliefs/ideas on the current problems facing the student union. Vote for me because I am a woman.)

 

Sadly yes.

 

Did our female rights club support her platform....again sadly yes.

 

 

Why did she not have a stance/beliefs/ideas on any of the issues facing our student union? I don't know

Did this hurt my brain? yes

 

 

Anyhow that is my rant of the evening, sorry to be slightly off topic.

 

 

Other than that I completely agree with you Satsuma, many of the problems facing Healthcare in Canada are the fault of politicians. Frankly I truly believe that just has the justice system has it's own wing of the government, medicine should be above and beyond the power of politicians. Doctors should be making the decisions in regards to these things, they are more familiar with the situation, most likely have more education, and who trusts a politician anyways?

[Wolvenstar]

If people want to play the blaming game the blame really belongs to the politicians of the day....I wonder how many of them were women?

 

I like everything you said, I whole heartedly agree that politicians are to blame, but I most whole heartedly have to look at that last part of your statement.

 

Perhaps it's just cause sparking controversy is fun, or because studying so much has been melting my brain, or because my university's female rights program decided to take a good idea and turn it into a horrible program.

 

Very few women run for politcal positions of any kind. Even less of those women get the position they have run for. Perhaps more women should try to get some sort of political position.

Do the majority of women not run because of some sort of sexism? No

Is the reason that very few of the women who actually ran for a position got the position due to sexism? No

What it because no one like their politcal platform? yes

Do we as a society need to be more fair and vote more women into positions of political power? No

Why? because we would be voting them into that position just because they were female not because of their platform. Voting is about getting the people into parliament who you think will help the country not what their gender is.

 

 

Should a female rights club advertise that more women need to be voted into decision making seats right before the election of the student's union president? Possibly but again only if the women has a good platform

 

Should the woman who decides to run for president of the student's union base her platform only on the fact that she is a women (ie: vote for me because I am a girl, but how no ideas on what to do with the student's union)

 

Did a women run for president of the student's union at my university and base her running solely on "I'm a women. I don't have any beliefs/ideas on the current problems facing the student union. Vote for me because I am a woman.)

 

Sadly yes.

 

Did our female rights club support her platform....again sadly yes.

 

 

Why did she not have a stance/beliefs/ideas on any of the issues facing our student union? I don't know

Did this hurt my brain? yes

 

 

Anyhow that is my rant of the evening, sorry to be slightly off topic.

 

 

Other than that I completely agree with you Satsuma, many of the problems facing Healthcare in Canada are the fault of politicians. Frankly I truly believe that just has the justice system has it's own wing of the government, medicine should be above and beyond the power of politicians. Doctors should be making the decisions in regards to these things, they are more familiar with the situation, most likely have more education, and who trusts a politician anyways?

 

 

This part is on topic, what do the rest of you think? Do you think the health care system would be better run if it was a board of physcians making the decisions in regards to doctor training, portion of national revenue needed for healthcare, etc?

[Meredith]

This part is on topic, what do the rest of you think? Do you think the health care system would be better run if it was a board of physcians making the decisions in regards to doctor training, portion of national revenue needed for healthcare, etc?

 

I'm going to comment on this bit.

 

I work in hospital management, in a large academic hospital, and have applied to medical school this year. I think that yes, physicians should be making the decisions in regards to doctor training (e.g., content). As for the numbers of doctors being trained/licensed, and the portion of national revenue needed for healthcare, etc., I think that doctors should be a part of that decision-making body.

 

Like most others in this country, my hospital has major financial worries, what with rising technology costs, human resources costs, ageing population, more demanding patient population, etc. In order to provide the services it does, major and creative strategizing is done. I have been at the table with physicians trying to allocate the hospital's limited resources for the next year. Please believe me, physicians are not adequately prepared to make funding decisions on their own. They play a hugely valuable role in the process, but other players (i.e., highly experienced and educated hospital administrators) are certainly needed.