Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

MD/humanities programs


dazzle

Recommended Posts

well, of course i wan't to get a to b to better, that's me, philosophical assertions, as well as sociological ones… can have outcomes data, i'f i want to be theoretical i'd just write a book or something in my free time… :)

 

I've certainly read some of these "armchair" medical practice theories and ideas. There is no substitute for experiencing and exploring patient preferences directly - in clinic, in a family room outside the ICU, on rounds. The purpose of a degree in sociology or philosophy of medicine would be simply to review the existing literature and (depending on the level) contribute to it. But I don't think you need a degree for any of that. And, personally, I don't like over-theorizing or soft "phenomenological qualitative research".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks LostinSpace. I appreciated your contribution in this thread.

 

By the way, was it insanely hard to get into your program? I do have a good GPA but McGill says that a masters degree is needed for their MD/PhD program.

 

You don't need a MSc to get into the combined program at UofT (although I had one). There are many people here that came from undergrad that had solid undergrad research. It's a very competitive program to get into but definitely doable for the right candidate. Especially perhaps for someone like you who isn't doing the traditional benchwork PhD (i.e. genetics, cell bio, etc.); UofT seems very open to having a combined degree in a non-traditional PhD combination as I often see that student with the PhD in progress in the history and philosophy of medicine mentioned in publications/reports by UofT.

 

If you want to talk more about the program, PM me, I'm always happy to talk to people who are interested in the program and interested in grad work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I did not mean simple as in easy. I am sure you could pick that up in your more charitable moods. I am going in my final year now for philosophy BA. I did a BSc before so I know all about indecision.

 

Some posts in this thread assume that because I want to do an MD all my efforts in life should be gathered in the direction of being a better physician. How do you know that my studies in medicine should not be gathered in the direction of becoming a better philosopher?

 

I'm of the mind that when you have disparate interests you should focus on whatever you most want to be doing. If you feel a calling toward becoming a better philosopher, and want to make an original contribution to the field in a PhD, then by all means do that - keeping in mind that "real life" issues of job prospects will be very different.

 

If you want to be a physician, go to medical school. There is very little about medicine that requires any kind of philosophy training, apart from having a strong sense of ethics and the ability to think through (sometimes) complex problems or even ethical dilemmas. And I can say that your studies in medicine should NOT be gathered in the direction of becoming a better philosopher. It would have zero bearing on your examination, communication, or procedural skills, and it won't help with basic sciences training or much of any clinical practice.

 

That's not to say that having such interests would be a bad thing, but it would be entirely tangential if not completely irrelevant to medicine. You might as well ask whether a philosophy PhD would be an advantage to becoming a dentist or microbiology lab tech.

 

Regardless, I have been thinking about a few issues in philosophy (none related to history of medicine or philosophy of science, as much as this would serve as ideal side-material while doing medical school), and I could not do them justice if I did not dedicate time to them. While doing a philosophy degree, I realize how rigorously one needs to think and research about something before forming even a presentable piece of opinion or writing. This sense of rigor is not something that I want to lose with medical school when it comes to forming ideas in the humanities. In a sense, this side of the practice (socio-intellectual) is more important to me than the textbook regurgitation one, so it would be fair in this case to consider a double degree. To consider it as simple intellectual masturbation wouldn't do justice to what may be necessary for my self-fulfillment.

 

I think the issue is whether it is reasonable to commit to a 7-year combined program when you are giving reasons like "the type of accreditation" or "sense of accomplishment" that comes with a degree. These are poor reasons to pursue any academic program - but it sounds like you do want to delve into topics more deeply. Why not pursue an MA first?

 

I do understand your desire to continue to produce pieces of rigorous scholarship, but I would counter that this can be done in medical school - albeit not normally as part of the core curriculum. But many students do pursue projects, whether they be case reports or research. I haven't heard of many doing pure philosophical work unrelated to medicine, but it would not necessarily be difficult to do in pre-clerkship and/or during the summer.

 

Again, as much as there may be content to some responses here, I'm appalled by them, especially since they come from future doctors. I must say that it is one of my biggest fears about medical school to have to be mostly with people without sensibility for the humanities.

 

I think this is really unfair. Many medical students have considerable interests or backgrounds in humanities subjects. At Dal, there's an entire humanities program and I've been involved in or attended numerous events.

 

But there's a world of difference between an appreciation for history, literature, music, and art and an interest in metaphysics or - worse - post-modern philosophy. You might as well expect people in medical school to be familiar with modern abstract algebra or real (or complex!) analysis; they'll be just as (okay probably much more so) esoteric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"analytic" philosophy is closely associated to Bertrand Russell, Carnap, etc. But many currents in political philosophy or philosophy of law or ethics can be considered analytic as well. There is nothing esoteric about these latter kinds of philosophies. As someone interested in medicine, it goes together that I am interested in philosophy that may be made accessible or can have a tangible view toward improving our views.

 

Anyway, in response to your comment, I do have divergent interests (although I am sure they converge somewhere, maybe a meaning of life thing) and I would not feel complete by putting one on the back burner. I get the feeling they both need attending to.

 

I know that one can be a doctor without reading a page of philosophy, and that doing philosophy might serve no immediate purpose (although I disagree) in the practice of medicine, but I wouldn't choose medicine if I was that limited.

 

Sure, I can join some humanities clubs, but depending on how strongly I feel about some issues, I may have to pursue them more strongly.

 

I am a philosopher before anything. Love of wisdom. It's only fitting I may be interested in this sort of thing. The length of program is biggest obstacle since I am 25 this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand that "analytic" philosophy is something of a catch-all term, but I reiterate that it remains esoteric for anyone who didn't actually study it. I have only limited experience, having read mainly classics in moral and political philosophy as opposed to the more "meta" subjects they talked about over in the Philosophy Dept.

 

Medicine is a profession - a trade, if you will - that is about the application of a vast amount of information to the diagnosis and treatment of sick people. As I've said before, I can think of few if any circumstances where a knowledge of contemporary analytic philosophy is especially relevant, with the exception of ethics (and, even then, the decisions you make around end-of-life care will be dictated more by family preferences and the legal environment than anything from academic philosophy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I can join some humanities clubs, but depending on how strongly I feel about some issues, I may have to pursue them more strongly.

 

I am a philosopher before anything. Love of wisdom. It's only fitting I may be interested in this sort of thing. The length of program is biggest obstacle since I am 25 this summer.

 

Nooooo don't say that, I am 25 and know quite a few people who started the program at 25. Anyone who did a grad degree before entering will be older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand that "analytic" philosophy is something of a catch-all term, but I reiterate that it remains esoteric for anyone who didn't actually study it. I have only limited experience, having read mainly classics in moral and political philosophy as opposed to the more "meta" subjects they talked about over in the Philosophy Dept.

 

Medicine is a profession - a trade, if you will - that is about the application of a vast amount of information to the diagnosis and treatment of sick people. As I've said before, I can think of few if any circumstances where a knowledge of contemporary analytic philosophy is especially relevant, with the exception of ethics (and, even then, the decisions you make around end-of-life care will be dictated more by family preferences and the legal environment than anything from academic philosophy).

 

Take a browse through this journal:

 

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/

 

It is the Oxford Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

 

I think it provides concrete examples where an MD/Philosophy PhD would be a great asset to a physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless a physician is going to spend a considerable portion of her career as a bioethicist, a PhD in philosophy would be an enormous overqualification.

 

At a certain point, we only have so much time to pursue formal education, and embarking upon a graduate degree let alone a PhD for pure interest when it does not relate to your intended career is something of a vanity project. I don't think making a choice one way or the other is really a bad thing either. It is one thing to start training as a clinician scientist (though this can certainly wait for residency...), but the combination with humanities seems far more disparate and less justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand that "analytic" philosophy is something of a catch-all term, but I reiterate that it remains esoteric for anyone who didn't actually study it. I have only limited experience, having read mainly classics in moral and political philosophy as opposed to the more "meta" subjects they talked about over in the Philosophy Dept.

 

Medicine is a profession - a trade, if you will - that is about the application of a vast amount of information to the diagnosis and treatment of sick people. As I've said before, I can think of few if any circumstances where a knowledge of contemporary analytic philosophy is especially relevant, with the exception of ethics (and, even then, the decisions you make around end-of-life care will be dictated more by family preferences and the legal environment than anything from academic philosophy).

 

 

What I am trying to get across A-Stark - and thanks for the discussion - is that you must not think of someone doing a PhD in humanities as directly relevant to their work as a doctor, but as something they want to do for self-fulfilment.

 

And yes, I will be honest, I would not like to spend my life as a bioethicist but I would not mind having many side-projects related to my studies in philosophy, whether related to social policy, law, etc. I don't consider myself as someone who necessarily wants to spend all his time in the clinic/hospital treating patients directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nooooo don't say that, I am 25 and know quite a few people who started the program at 25. Anyone who did a grad degree before entering will be older.

 

Are they specializing after? :P

 

On a normal medicine program, I would get my first salary at 30 years of age. With a combined degree, I would take 3 more years. That's a lot! I guess spouses help with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it just really comes down to time then - I don't know that 3 years is such a long time, but some people finish a whole MD and residency in the time you'd take for a combined degree. An MA might get you some of the experience you want without the level of commitment, but it is your career after all. Maybe should think about what kind of residency you would want to do? I suppose the other thing that, even starting the PhD, you wouldn't have to finish it necessarily if you changed your mind later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they specializing after? :P

 

On a normal medicine program, I would get my first salary at 30 years of age. With a combined degree, I would take 3 more years. That's a lot! I guess spouses help with that?

 

Thats what the funding structure of the MD/PhD program tries to address. In the combined program, you make a yearly stipend of $30,000. So you effectively make $210,000 throughout your program... which is a very wise investment indeed in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy mother... you make 30k from year one?? That is a game-changer.

 

I won't have the research experience to make it in the MD/PhD program anyway - just a few honours seminars (maybe that counts?).

 

Sorry dude, that probably won't cut it :( the people who get into this program have patents, tons of papers, presented at international symposiums, have book chapters, etc. it's very competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy mother... you make 30k from year one?? That is a game-changer.

 

I won't have the research experience to make it in the MD/PhD program anyway - just a few honours seminars (maybe that counts?).

 

You don't really "make" anything. 30K is barely enough to cover MD tuition...add in living, and you still probably owe money. Now make it 8-9 years for the MD and PhD, and most of your colleagues will have finished residency and started making 300K per year, while you are doing carms applications. Money is probably the most stupid reason I've heard to decide to do an MD/PhD. The funding's only purpose is to prevent you from being a 40 year old fresh out of school and 400K in debt.

 

If you're legitimately interested in doing a PhD, then that's a different story (and not just interested - if you don't feel the internal burning NEED to do a PhD, it probably isn't for you). Making a PhD a game-changer based on funding support during the degree is total foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm more into applied philosophy with regards to medicine… for example philosophy of science with regard to the distinction between naturopathic and allopathic medicine, perhaps i painted my goals more esoterically and abstractly than i would like them to be… since my motivation is to bridge the gap between some abstract philosophical ideas i favour and clinical practice.

 

i feel this is how i come off because while many of my ideas stem from abstract post-modern bs, i'm ultimately a pragmatist in everything i do

 

so my hypothesis may stem from more abstract philosophical psychology, philosophy of science etc. but i'm into philosophy by habit, not as a formal academic endeavour for expressing my ideas…

 

my ultimate work would have to be empirical in some sense… so perhaps you could say a philosophically inspired social sciences thesis… (more holistic care breaking aways from betrand russel-esque formal logic and materialistic reductionism, as well as bottom up causality… systemically using philosophy of science… a few people in particular... and looking at treatment modalities and what we now call evidence based medicine…

 

most philosophers i'd be interested in could be labeled philosophers, psychologists, or sociologists, so personally…. i agree in a pragmatic focus.

 

sorry if i miscommunicated

 

Muse, I STILL don't see why this study needs to be systematic. Is it for the benefit of society, or for learning purposes? If it's for the benefit of society, then I think it would be best to complete your medical education, get some experience in the field and then set forth on doing an MA or PhD in Humanities. I still don't see how a combined degree is really conducive even to that goal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very true, u of t md-phd is the most competitive combined program in the country… the perks and resources are unbelievable.

 

Sorry dude, that probably won't cut it :( the people who get into this program have patents, tons of papers, presented at international symposiums, have book chapters, etc. it's very competitive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...