Ideas in Search of a Post.

I am going to steal Lance Mannion’s category of “ideas in search of a post”. The spirit is willing to elaborate on these ideas, but the flesh is weak and does not want to pontificate tonight:

>> A significant problem with medical education is the lack of context. Some medbloggers suggest that the business of medicine ought to be a required course in medical school—while this perspective holds merit (as, indeed, healthcare is a business, though that grates against our idealistic tendencies), medical students often learn about medicine as if it is totally in a vacuum. This is why many surgeons and internists distill the social history into three topics:

  • tobacco use
  • alcohol use
  • other substance use

In psychiatry, we delve much deeper into social history, though even we often reduce it to a few bullet points (born here, raised there, this many siblings, parents involved, possible abuse, graduated this grade, worked these jobs, married this many times, this many kids, currently living where, living with whom, relationships, financial support…).

We don’t learn that medicine is practiced within the context of economic demands. We don’t recognize that the patient may hold certain cultural beliefs (where “cultural” doesn’t necessarily refer to ethnicity) about their minds and bodies that may significantly impact his healthcare. We isolate diseases as solely conditions of an internal organ and exclude how the environment may have affected the condition and, conversely, how this condition affects how the individual interacts with the environment.

When we finally practice out in the “real world”, context whisks us off of our feet and we’re bewildered—you mean money plays a big role in healthcare? you mean medications don’t grow on trees? you mean patients don’t have endless resources to follow our recommendations to the letter? what?

>> Psychiatrists are much more attuned to human behavior than I realized. A group of residents from a variety of specialties convened this evening to learn about administrative tasks, managing conflict, team dynamics—middle management, essentially. As the speaker (a skilled administrator who is a physician) elaborated about the craft of bridging administration with medicine, I realized that so much of my training is directly related to this type of diplomacy and management of people. Many of the other residents found these concepts novel—these are issues they do not routinely consider.

This is probably totally obvious to everyone else. But just because I think about human behavior a lot doesn’t mean that everyone else does, too. (Hear that buzzing noise? It’s the lightbulb over my head flickering to life.)

>> Grand Rounds is up. This summer’s literary medblogging project (thank you, fellow blogging bards!) made it onto “Vitum’s Top V“. Sweetness.


16 Jul 2007 |



4 comments »


I notice that dichotomy a lot — the medical person dispenses the meds, then they turn you over to the people who handle the financial and administration. I get the feeling that the med folk would rather not touch that side of the operation, possibly because its alien to them. I don’t think they NEED to know that part, but they do need to be sensitive to it.

Apropos of that: is there a psychiatric equivilent to what’s called ‘caviar medicine’ or ‘retainer medicine’?

Comment by bill | 17 Jul 2007 @ 8:35am



re: the first point (sort of). i feel like (pre-)med students should be learning about cultural studies (sociology, history, psy) as well as finances while studying medicine, exactly for the reasons you point out.
and i’m hesitant to call all pre-meds, if not med students, “idealistic” in the sense of saving humanity by saving lives. i think they’re more idealistic in the sense of wanting very much to succeed in achieving this incomparable goal of becoming an MD. “context” about the humanity of patients and the environments that dictate their relationship with health care is important if only because it makes doctors and the practise of health care things that real, that are situated within existing structures of being.
for one thing, things would more efficient, no? doctors and med students would see how they are connected with child care services, schools, and prisons. and, secondly, this would hopefully precipitate a move away from the usual idolatry of medicine, which i think is dangerous, both for patients and doctors.

because it scares me, when i think about it, that some of the kids i did pre-med with will become doctors. some of those kids could not have cared less about the people whose lives they’d be responsible for. as one girl put it, becoming a doctor was about “the lifestyle.” and i can’t help but think that some courses outside the “usual” realm of science would have pulled them down to earth and humanity a bit.

Comment by fathima | 17 Jul 2007 @ 3:09pm



On the other hand, the contexts of being a psychiatrist practicing medicine and a psychiatrist interacting in an administrative environment are quite different, and I think one could easily be quite skilled at one and not very good at the other, even though one could be equally skilled in each area in an analytical way.

I don’t know that psychiatrists’ personal lives end up being such a great example for the rest of us to live by.

Comment by Greg P | 17 Jul 2007 @ 5:51pm



Psychiatrists are much more attuned to human behavior than I realized.

Not just that. I also think psychiatrists are much more sensitive to the nuances of language than other physicians, probably because a lot of the pathology is dependent upon the use of language for its expression.

Comment by karrvakarela | 18 Jul 2007 @ 2:51pm




Say something.

|