Alex H

First of all, thank you for making me think about this on a deeper level than I am used to. Let me explain my thoughts on the two types of doctors and their reasons for wanting to go to medical school Doctor 1: I am fascinated by how the human body works and I want to learn everything that I can about how to treat it through science and medicine. If I don't understand something in one of my classes, I am going to do everything that I can to master it because it is interesting to me and I have an urge to know. Doctor 2: I really want to help people for a living, so I am going to be a doctor. I hate seeing people in pain and I want to alleviate their suffering. If I don't understand something in one of my classes, it's not that important because I am in this line of work to interact with people and to make sure they are as comfortable as possible as my patients. This is two ends of the spectrum, and I'm sure a lot of doctors have a mix of the two. But, when people talk about joining the field of medicine to "alleviate human suffering" or "to help people," I always think of Doctor #2. In this light, I would rather have Doctor #1 treating me every time. BUT, as a doctor who is joining the field to learn as much about medicine as possible, I EXPECT the outcome of my work to be the alleviation of my patients' suffering, because that will mean that I did a good job in learning the scientific aspect of medicine. If I do something that makes the suffering of my patient worse (which happens to all doctors at some point), then I will question my technique and refine it for the next time, if necessary. Notice the difference though- alleviating the suffering of my patient is NOT my MOTIVATION for doing the job, but it is my expectation that it will occur. With this in mind, I will add my two cents to your amazing skit This is different than what I am saying. I do care about alleviating the person's suffering, because it is a benchmark for how good I am at my profession (This is true for any doctor in the country- the more successful times you do a surgery, the more popular you become for it and the more patients you receive). So I would say something like "Due to the fact that I am very good at what I do, I expect you to have the best chance of surviving this operation, and consequently alleviating your suffering, if you choose me as your doctor." I would hope that anybody who has heard the story of Howard Roark and Peter Keating would WANT to hear this statement. And, finally, to answer your question again (in a different way), if you have two doctors of equal skill level, I guess it doesn't really matter who does my surgery. Their motivations are irrelevant if they are equal in skill. I hope this made some sense, and again, thank you for making me think of this on a deeper level!

This policy makes sense if you compare it to the rules at colleges and universities. For example, many people that attended my University were out-of-state students that went home for the summer. While at home, they took more classes at local colleges and universities to give them more credits towards graduating, but those courses could not count towards their GPA's because they were not taken at the University at which they were graduating. They got credit towards a degree, but not points towards their GPA. I understand that this is not what the principal said as a rationale, and what he gave is nothing more than a terrible excuse. But, nonetheless, the policy itself does make sense to me.

Good question. I will answer it twice. My first answer is that you have created an impossible scenario. The doctor who has chosen the profession solely for the scientific aspect will always have better skill (in diagnosis and other aspects of the profession) because he has chosen something that HE wants to learn as much about as possible because it interests HIM. So, the skills of the two types of doctors will not be equal. [Edit- Think Roark vs. Keating. Who was the better architect?] But, I will go ahead and answer your question anyway. I would rather have the doctor who has chosen the profession primarily for the scientific aspect. He will be less emotional during the process of treating, he will put less pressure on himself to "alleviate the suffering" of the patient, and he will make clearer choices because of it.

Wow, this looks great. I sent an email requesting the Kit. Thank you

I plan to be a doctor because I have always been drawn to human physiology, and especially the fact that outcomes involving the human body can be, in essence, controlled through science and medicine. If alleviating human suffering, on some scale, is a natural by-product of that, so be it. However, it is not a reason why a chose the profession. Hmm interesting. I'll have to start listening to his podcasts.

This is really good advice, because I can think of a couple of things that I got out of these experiences that will help me as a future doctor. I guess my reasons for doing the work can be made irrelevant by focusing on positive outcomes of it.

I agree. The volunteer work that I did for myself and completely enjoyed was walking dogs for a humane society. I did other volunteer work specifically related to medicine, but unfortunately I did that because I felt that I had to. I wasn't going to talk about the former, because I didn't think it related to medicine at all. But, I guess that just doing volunteer work that I cared about is probably a good thing to mention. I'll try to work it in somehow Thank you for your response. While I do not believe that the nature of the medical practice is incompatible with my values, I do believe that the fact that I did this volunteer work because I felt that I had to is against my (new-found)values, which is why I have a hard time talking about it now. If I were to talk about these volunteer experiences honestly, I would say that I did not want to do them, which is not something I should disclose to a school that is considering me. So, I think my choice is to make up a story about how they were important to me as a future doctor, or omit those experiences which I did not do for myself.

Hey, I'm new to these forums, and objectivism in general, but I'm reading as much as I can on these forums to learn about it. I have a question for anybody that has ever applied to medical school or is familiar with the process: Is there any way to fill out the apps and remain objectivist? They virtually require volunteer experience, which I have done but it wasn't because I wanted to it was because the application boards want to see it. Now I find myself talking about my volunteer experiences in a way that glorifies altruism, which makes me want to puke as I write it. However, I feel as if they have to hear this stuff in order to accept me into med school. Anybody been through something similar before?