"...nonphysicians are going to seek the right to practice medicine..."

[lostintime]

I don't know if I would trust a pharmacist more than a psychologist prescribing psych meds. One doesn't really know how to do a proper psych assessment but at least knows a ton about drug interactions beyond reading off a chart or computer program, whereas one does a great psych assessment but doesn't have any pharmacology or general medical disease background.

 

Yeah neither is really ideal. Sure there are bad psychiatrists who don't do a pscyh assessment and just write scripts. But good psychiatrists are definitely unique in their scope.

[Robin Hood]

I don't know if I would trust a pharmacist more than a psychologist prescribing psych meds. One doesn't really know how to do a proper psych assessment but at least knows a ton about drug interactions beyond reading off a chart or computer program, whereas one does a great psych assessment but doesn't have any pharmacology or general medical disease background.

 

Yeah neither is really ideal. Sure there are bad psychiatrists who don't do a pscyh assessment and just write scripts. But good psychiatrists are definitely unique in their scope.

 

The branch of Medicine that is the closest to Pharmacy is Internal Medicine.

Also, the main reason why pharmacists can't diagonize and prescribe is because that could create a conflict of interest.

As for psychologists, that's why I'm suggesting to teach them the same basic science courses as MD.

[Robin Hood]

I don't agree with you on a few points:

 

1) Dentists do not diagnose diabetes. They might suspect it and tell you to see your family physician just like a nurse can suspect hypertension.

 

2) As far as dentists are concerned, they prescribe withing their scope of practice and the fact that they don't have an extensive medical background (ie theoretical AND practical) isn't a handicap.

 

3) In a few schools (for eg McGill) dental students take their basic science courses with the medical students. However I don't think that they're more fit to prescribe drugs or diagnose oral diseases because of that training, it's more of a philosophy (if it was really necessary it would be compulsory).

 

4) I'm quoting you: ''The best thing to do for dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and medical psychologists would be the give them the same basic science courses as MD students and have them pass the same basic science exams. Also, these professions should be recognized for their work, and not be considered lower than MDs.''

First of all why do you say that these professions are considered lower than MDs? Even if it was the case why would taking basic science courses change that? And here we're talking about making the system better, so I think (and it's my personal opinion) that in order to do that there's no room for ''professional pride''.

 

5) So what if we rip medicine apart? I'm not saying I'm all for it, but as I said previously, it's not because it's the model that we've been using for a few decades that it's the only one that works. Indeed medical education as we know it is pretty young, and don't reply by telling me about the Egyptians and the Greeks... There can be other models that are more efficient and like another poster mentioned earlier, I feel that physicians are a little over trained.

 

Peace

 

For dentists, it's because I don't see much difference between them and a medical specialist. A medical specialist will have to learn about the whole body, eventhough he will only focus on one part. About prestige, a lot of MDs look down on dentists, eventhough they can do a similar job (like surgery). In one of the articles I posted, DPMs in California want to be considered equal to physicians, and even get LCME accredition, they complain about how physicians used to look down on them because of their degree. OMFS too feel the same treatment, even those who have an MD (physicians see OMFS-MDs as having fasttracked throught medical school).

As for ripping medicine apart, should we get a profession for cardiologists, a profession for ORLs, etc (that would be too much professions)? Or we can keep the profession, but get a school for each of these, but that too will be too much? If we don't split all medical specialisties into their own school and degree, then the question will be, where to draw the line?

Peace!

[donnadee]

For dentists, it's because I don't see much difference between them and a medical specialist. A medical specialist will have to learn about the whole body, eventhough he will only focus on one part. About prestige, a lot of MDs look down on dentists, eventhough they can do a similar job (like surgery). In one of the articles I posted, DPMs in California want to be considered equal to physicians, and even get LCME accredition, they complain about how physicians used to look down on them because of their degree. OMFS too feel the same treatment, even those who have an MD (physicians see OMFS-MDs as having fasttracked throught medical school).

As for ripping medicine apart, should we get a profession for cardiologists, a profession for ORLs, etc (that would be too much professions)? Or we can keep the profession, but get a school for each of these, but that too will be too much? If we don't split all medical specialisties into their own school and degree, then the question will be, where to draw the line?

Peace!

 

to clear some things:

we are taught basic sciences in dental school.

we are taught to be able to identify oral aspects of various diseases/disorders (diabetes, anorexia e.t.c) and but since their treatment is outside the scope of dentistry for the most part, they have to be referred out...if dentistry was to be a medical specialty, we would still not be participating in treatment, actual diagnosis so it doesnt make any sense to have it as a medical specialty...

[Robin Hood]

to clear some things:

we are taught basic sciences in dental school.

we are taught to be able to identify oral aspects of various diseases/disorders (diabetes, anorexia e.t.c) and but since their treatment is outside the scope of dentistry for the most part, they have to be referred out...if dentistry was to be a medical specialty, we would still not be participating in treatment, actual diagnosis so it doesnt make any sense to have it as a medical specialty...

 

Some schools (like McGill) do integrate DMDs/DDSs with MDs for basic science, but some don't. Also, your scope of practice won't change if you get called physicians, I'm only suggesting that dentists be called physicians because you do the same work. The DMD/DDS doesn't need to be replaced with the MD, dentistry is too complex to be fully integrated with medicine. DPMs in the US are called physicians by their board.

[thebouque]

to clear some things:

we are taught basic sciences in dental school.

we are taught to be able to identify oral aspects of various diseases/disorders (diabetes, anorexia e.t.c) and but since their treatment is outside the scope of dentistry for the most part, they have to be referred out...if dentistry was to be a medical specialty, we would still not be participating in treatment, actual diagnosis so it doesnt make any sense to have it as a medical specialty...

 

Identifying an oral manifestation of diabetes =/= diagnosing diabetes.

Also not all medical specialties are involved in treatments (for eg pathology, community medicine, nuclear medicine)

[Lactic Folly]

Aside: nucs does radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid disease, among other treatments.

[thebouque]

Aside: nucs does radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid disease, among other treatments.

 

Sorry I should've called them ''mostly diagnostic specialties''