Women Doctors: Waste of Money?

I am a psychiatrist trained in Boston. Last month I presented Grand Rounds at Harvard University. The topic was "Psychodynamics of the Gender Differences". My theory explains why women make the choices they do. It is not the society but psychological drives/needs rooted in biology.
Society (particularly more patriarchal societies) has a role where these differences are exploited and women are restricted and controlled in many ways. However if it was possible to have an absolutely free society, women will still make choices different then men leading to less productivity by tangible worldly standards. However there will be many more problems in society if women also made the same choices as men. The genders are very complimentary.

I agree. However it is not a "waste of time" to train women as one blogger stated. I've worked in health care many years and find that women are more well received than men as physicians and of course, nurses. Women have a sensitivity and calmness about them that men tend to lack. Men may be able to take on more patients and more hours but most of the time it's at the expense of patient care and their home life. Not only hospitals, but clinics and Dr's offices seem more like an assembly line these days.
Women Doctors are full of professional and personal responsibilities that aren't shared by men. The issue HAS to be addressed at home. Women make it a priority to spend time with their families and balance work and home life. Men do not. So this makes men better doctors? The fact that they put work above family? If it wasn't their patients in THIS field it would be their work in another field.
I don't think this article proves anything except that men are still putting work (among other things) above family.

Maybe the men need to take a lesson from the women.

.... to add

it's never a waste of money for someone to be a trained Doctor.
For one, they PAID for their own training and whether or not they use their training is up to them.
Also, let's say we have a woman Doc who had a child and now works part time. Are you saying that her time there is worthless? That the lives she possibly saved mean nothing?

This argument is 50 years old.
I suspect that any male who thinks it's a "waste" to train women doctors is indeed single and will stay that way.

The need for doctors is so great that it's never a waste ..... even if they are only part time.

While male doc's may see more patients, I think Cynthia has a point. As a male myself, I'm more likely to open up more, and discuss what's wrong to a female doc than a male. I think that's a fairly common theme. Men don't want to seem weak to other men, and will cover up some symptom while providing full disclosure to a female doc. While male docs see more patients, how many of those are return visits because the patient felt uncomfortable telling the male doc he saw the last time what was really wrong. Quality vs quantity needs to be taken into account.

Cynthia, your response only confirms the original post.

To begin with, N America is almost unique in expecting doctors to pay for their own training, and due to this and other well-known financial distortions, the USA health care business is less cost-effective than any other OECD equivalent. Michael Moore got that part right, at least. Most everywhere else, training is a state responsibility, and it is obvious to all but blinkered ideologues that there is a moral duty to spend finite health training funds in the most cost-effective manner. If you get more work out of males, there is a strong incentive to recruit proportionately more males. And puh-leeze, spare us the crap about sensitive, caring women doctors, I have known many sensitive male docs and an almost equal number of crass female docs. Good doctoring is not sex-specific, even if you believe it to be.

A historical perspective is also useful. Most of a family physician's workload is bread and butter stuff, handing out repeat prescriptions and such-like which could be done by nurse practitioners and pharmacists. This is how health care costs are being trimmed in the UK.

In any case, public health scientists understand that the current pandemics of of NIDDM and the other non-coms are directly due to the apalling way in which we live and eat today. The real remedies are not more docs 'n' pills, but social engineering.

UKdoc
ps I don't expect a USA-doc to find that instinctively easy to understand, but it's well worth looking into.

@ Paula: the fact that the person pays their own way does not make doctoral training less effective.

I'd rather women who were able to become doctors were doctors rather than babysitters. Get them baby sitters.

QED

UKDoc I agree that diet and exercise are where we really need to be spending our money. Who cares how many male and female doctors we are training if all they are going to do is prescribe us drugs that make things worse?

I'm a feminist at heart and I don't care how many male vs. female doctors there are. If women are happy to take care of their families then so be it. We all have different priorities and values.

http://www.billionairewoman.com/2008/04/10/pay-inequality-women-balance/

I guess I don't see a problem here. Let me just use simple #'s to make a point. If in the 1970's the US produced 100 male doctors that worked full time.

And now in the year 2008 the US produces 200 female doctors working part time, isn't this the same thing? Isn't the output of work the same?

And isn't someone a better worker, more likely to love their job when they do it part time, for the love of the job? Instead of being 'forced' to kill themselves to see so many patients?

In the US, we pay our own way, so the only money we're wasting is our own, the decision of how much to work is up to the person who paid the bill!

The femininisation of medicine is a bad thing for the profession in the long term.
It contributed to the dropping of standards.
It is clear that the limited hours, part time, no call, less intensity fields chosen type of career over time leads to erosion of skills which no amount of compassion can help. When I am having an MI, I'll take competence over compassion any time.
Women, do not stand up to a health care system where administrators hold ultimate power and the purse strings, they do not commit to a lifestyle where they put a premium on their work. Yet the demand that the profession must change to suit them rather than they select a field that accomodates their needs.
Medical training is expensive, and a scarce resource. Unlike other resources whee you can just make more, the infrastructure needed to adequately train more doctors is not that easy to just whip up without sacrificing quality. For those of you "Michael Moorer types" that love to put up cuba as an example, just take a look at the standard of their medical schools and graduates. They can't give them away! A few like minded socialists like Chavez will take a few and unleash them on on unsuspecting illiterates and poor, but by and large they are doctors in name only not in skills.
If you don't want the intensity involved in becoming a Cardiothoracic surgeon, then don;t be one, becoming one then walking away from a 6 hr surgery because your shift is up is not acceptable.
That is the attitude I see from many of the younger especially women doctors nowadays. Our liberal leaning media only propagates this movement without giving due attention to the other side of the argument.

Has anyone seriously seen a doctor, male or female, young or older, walk away from a surgery because their shift was over? That is ludicrous. A Doctor may only schedule that one surgery that day, but they will not walk away in the middle.
While working in a hospital I saw every type of doctor discussed, and the level of care part time doctors gave their patients was not lessened because they saw fewer patients. Shortened hours does not mean less diligence.

I'm only a pre-med student, but as a woman I'm amazed at how unrealistic my fellow female pre-meds are about career expectations. Many want to pursue demanding careers in surgery but also state they want large families, etc. They expect a degree of special treatment in terms of maternity leave/scheduling and express confusion when I ask them how they think that will impact their workplaces (not to mention fellow practitioners) in terms of workload, coverage when they're away, etc. However, most pre-meds (both male and female) express interest in early retirement.

I do not understand how these women could possibly want to go into a male-dominated field and expect equal treatment without realizing that if they want equal treatment, an equal workload would be required, and no, child-rearing (though demanding in itself) is not equated into their professional workload. That is a personal choice, and thus not grounds for special treatment.

That said, if I had wanted children, I would have adjusted my goals in medicine. I've grown up in a male-dominated household and have seen firsthand the impact that women "wanting it all" has had not only male coworkers, but everyone involved. It may seem harsh, but it is a reality - if the tables were turned, I'm sure women would have no qualms about pointing the same problems out in men.

The "have it all" philosophy is grossly unrealistic. I do not believe in limiting women simply because they are women, but as with anyone - be careful what you choose, because everything in life comes at a cost. In my experience thus far, a large portion young women with their eyes set on medicine don't seem to have a firm grasp on that cost.

"Society (particularly more patriarchal societies) has a role where these differences are exploited and women are restricted and controlled in many ways."

I'm not sure this makes sense. Women make the choices they do due to psychology rooted in biology. Society sets up roles based around that fact. So where's the exploitation coming in? That seems like an unrelated comment you just haphazardly threw in there.

How about instead of focusing on how training women as doctors could be a waste b/c women will end up working out of the home less than their male counterparts, why don't we start asking WHY more men don't put in more work at home, leaving the well-qualified women to become better doctors who are able to work more?? I know many, many professional women who would work more hours outside of the home if they felt they had someone at home to attend to all the requirements that raising kids and keeping a comfortable home entails. Did no one see the recent article that on average, getting married adds 8 extra hours of housework a week for women? And surprise, when men get married, their average time doing housework decreases? I see a correlation here...

"WHY more men don't put in more work at home, leaving the well-qualified women to become better doctors who are able to work more??"

Because it's been proven women then dump these non-Alpha males, and the guys sure don't get alimony. Women are biologically attracted to higher-status males. You can't change nature.

And no one has brought up the fact that historically, men have been the innovators and discoverers in professions. If you take the men out of doctoring, you take the innovations out too. The reason for this that although the IQs of men and women are the same, there are more genius men (and that's balanced out by there being more retanded and mentally ill men).

Medical schools try to produce exactly enough doctors to meet the country's need. Since society hasn't become more egalitarian, why don't we simply have a surplus of female doctors? If women are working fewer hours to raise families, the involvement in the community that tends to arise from child-raising (PTA, Scouts, etc.) would put those female doctors in a better position to practice preventative medicine in the family practitioner territory. It would be a more holistic way of looking at medicine. We already know patients have problems relating their symptoms to doctors. We might spend more in medical training, but we would spend less in drugs and insurance expenses.

Generic Guy hit the nail on the head. If the critical output for a health care system is the number hours doctor are available per year and doctors (male or female) choose to work fewer hours than the required amount, then the solution is train (or import) more doctors.

Alternately, train other medical professionals to do the work. Much of the triage/gatekeeper aspect of a family practitioner can be done by nurse practitioners or physicians assistants.

Military physician assistants and PA equivalents (i.e. Army Special Forces Medic or Navy Independent Duty Corpsman) ably handle medical and even some surgical issues that a physician would deal with in the civilian world.

Or as in manufacturing or agriculture, steps could be taken to replace labor with technology. A nurse practitioner or PA with medical diagnostic software and a physician specialist available online could more efficiently treat medical problems than a physician working alone.

As an aside, the dental equivalent of a PA ("dental therapist") is common in Europe but in North America is only seen in Canada and Alaska.

What's the issue here? If there were X men and Y women capable of being trained as doctors in the past, and whereas before our total number of doctors was X but now is X + Y, isn't that a net gain? Surely the limitation on doctors is on the supply side and not the demand side, here - if women really do want to work less, then surely our system can adjust to still capitalize on their marginal productivity. I.e, if a woman only wants to work 40 hours a week and do house calls, can't we just pay her less accordingly?

You saw this with the elite universities when they went co-ed: Williams College, for instance, just doubled the size of its incoming class. Medicine is absurdly stodgy, old-fashioned, conservative, and unresponsive to market forces - and as said, some young female doctors may have unrealistic expectations about the extent to which they will have the time to 'do both' - so I get why there are some hiccups in transition. If med schools and residency programs didn't approximately double in size to accommodate the new students, then indeed, we will see a negative squeeze-out effect. The answer, though, is to call on the medical profession to adapt - the solution to the problem, from a policy perspective, is fairly simple.

The sad thing about this whole issue is that talented women in the medical and other professions often make the choice to either have a career or a family. End result it is the stupid who are left to breed! Probably not a very poular viewpoint but true nonetheless.

Who wasted time on this study???

Well said Nitza. This is the exact crux of the issue that feminists conveniently do not want to address.
We see all these surveys that talk about inequality in pay between the gender, they pretend to adjust for the differences in work hours etc. Yet come up with stats saying there is pay discrimination.
I remember during residency when I was single and male and would be the go to person whenever the chief resident got into a spot of bother with the call rota. Yet I got zero credit for that extra work. I remember one female resident who got pregnant not once but twice during residency and took maternity leave each time and managed to still graduate on time. Guess who got the shaft? If we believe in equal work for equal pay and if we are a meritocracy then these issues do matter.

When someone goes for surgery they want the best guy, and that often is the guy who does the volume and is not likely to be the part timer, or the person for whom career comes second. Now that person may very well be a woman who is dedicated to her work, and if so that is fine with me, but when the demand of family catch up and that lady stands up and demands she be a part-time surgeon or a part time CEO, no I don't think society owes anyone that. Medicine is such a career and ought to remain that if we want to maintain the highest standards.

We have a shortage of physicians. Part timers (in the article's case, women) take up slots in medical school.
We must educate more part timers to take up the slack.
No it is not a waste of time to become a part time physician but it is definitely more expensive.

What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of their class? Doctor.

So women want to spend time with their family. So do guys. And you call this desire a "staffing problem". How about punishing the hypochondriacs that waste medical personnel time and resources? You'll be amazed at how quickly this frees up doctors' time. Or that there might actually not be a "staffing problem" given a market driven economy like the U.S. instead of socialist medicine hacks like Europe.

It is not a waste of money. Everyone (No gender differences) has the right to choose what they do with their career, whether do it full time/part time, on the other hand, we have duties also, as a doc, to serve mankind. In my personal opinion, its upto an individual's choices. What choices you make, its totally upto your conscience.
Thanks.

It may cost more to take up more part-timers, but it's better in a community to have a few part-time family practitioners than no family practitioners at all because qualified, trained, experienced doctors weren't allowed to have personal lives. It's a Hippocratic oath, not a monastic oath.

If this is a meritocracy, then find more talented men to get those spots in medical school. Medical school isn't a charity; who gets admitted is determined by grades, recommendations, test scores, and who is most likely not to wash out during the path to becoming a doctor.

If we decrease the number of female med students based on the proportion of female doctors that have children and work less hours, then how do we determine which female med students will have children and which won't? Should we weed them out based on who's already in a committed relationship or who is the most fertile? Should spinsterhood be a mandatory requirement for female doctors or should we just have them sign contracts to agree not to get pregnant until twenty years into their careers?

Historically speaking, there have been more male innovators in professions than female innovators. But, historically speaking, women weren't allowed the same opportunities as men -- to access the same schools, quality and level of education, free time, and comparative social liberty to hole up in a lab, office, etc. to make these innovations. Just because female innovators are less in number doesn't mean they are total singularities.

Also, "feminization" may not be a bad thing. Offering better life choices to ensure that the profession will be sustained is a good thing - not a bad thing. Better to have ten part-timers in a community than no doctors at all.

FYI
Interesting article.

Dad

Aleks, None of those things you are suggesting need be done. We just need to be firm that if you have chosen this then don't crib about it. Medicine has been far to accommodating to these type of demands. If we were to just say no then the problem would take care of itself. Why should a profession accommodate the needs of someone who only wants to put forth half the time. Why should a person be asked to pick up the slack when the demands are made for equal pay and equality in every other benefit but with far less productivity. Are we a meritocracy or do we now believe in reverse discrimination?
And how is part time doctors a good thing, how is "feminisation" a good thing. What is likely to happen is the same thing that has happened in socialist Euro states where medicine is dominated by women, it slowly loses its prestige, it loses its autonomy, and eventually patients get the shaft. I have been at my current location for nearly 8 yrs, in my time here, I have never seen a female colleague stand up to a hospital administrator. It is almost as if they are afraid to hurt the hard nose administrators feelings or something. This is even as they would freely communicate with me that X or Y affect patient care. Ultimately, I would have to take up the cause. Why is that? How is that a good thing or Medicine. You educators do not see that aspect of the health care system from your ivory towers.
Medicine is what it is a career that requires a lot of commitment. Only those willing to put that forth need apply.

"However if it was possible to have an absolutely free society, women will still make choices different then men leading to less productivity by tangible worldly standards."

The above statement is not accurate to make. Since a society without discrimination does not exist, we don't know what choices women would make if they were not conditioned by society.

I would just like to point out that although Dr. McKinstry's study is scientific, it is no way to predict the future of medicine. Fifty years ago, women being doctors was an almost impossible achievement. Most women from two generations ago graduated in subjects like Home Economics, Childhood Education, and other stereotypically nuturing roles - a belief, or trait, if you will, that society has placed on women. I have to also point out that if he has an M.D. then he may not necessarily have the training needed to do research on society. This research may be better done for someone with a PhD in Women's Studies or Sociology.
I believe women have come a long way in making our roles equal to men. And, being a woman, I truely believe we have a long way to go. Dr. McKinstry may truely believe training women is a waste, but these very male-gender dominated thoughts are slowly changing. More men are taking leave when babies are born because it is socially acceptable. I believe this view will eventually change, and if a man can make it through medical school, there is no reason why a woman shouldn't be able to.
But - from a male-gender-dominated-viewpoint, I would like to add that in America, women currently make 75 cents per one dollar a man makes, so until this changes, (for you male-gendered thinkers) just think of all the money you are saving hiring women! Ha Ha.

There is a shortage of doctors, period. Even if 1 female med student bails out of med school, it doesn't mean a male student is going to take it up. It's likely another female student will take it up. Simple supply and demand mismatch. Rather have part-time supply, than none at all.

Karin, Noone is saying women cannot make it through medical school. We are all in agreement that they could. The larger question is their choices afterward, how it affects society and their profession.
The 75c on the dollar on sense has been said many times before. I knew someone would bring it up yet again. Thats why I blogged about it earlier.

It is true that women are going to have to take time out of their careers as doctors to raise a family, regardless as to whom is the primary caregiver at home. My own choices in a career were guided by the fact that I wanted to have a family, and a career, but knew that I would have to scale back my goals to accommodate both. I chose not to go into medicine, but education, and I feel it was the right choice. But even so, when I had my daughters, I was unable to work for 12 weeks due to being prescribed modified bed rest, and because of this received the first negative evaluations of my career. While the evals were not focused on my maternity leave (would have been a legal issue then), the points for improvement did contain references to preparation and time put in on the job ... both conditions that would not have been an issue had I not been pregnant. I feel that I ultimately was forced to resign from the job because the decision had been made by administration early on to let me go. It was simply less cost-effective for the district to train and support a child-rearing woman than to hire a man, or someone whose childbearing days were over. Because I lacked tenure, there was no protection from the labor union and the district protected themselves very well from any legal accusations. I lamented the decision to resign, but in the end, felt it was for the best all the way around. I am now in a PhD program, still have fairly young daughters, and I must admit, they do impact my productivity tremendously. However, my productivity will wax in relation to the stage of development my children are in ... as they mature, so will my ability to put in more time on the job. Furthermore, once my children are grown, I will still have quite a few years of full productivity to contribute to the greater good. I would imagine that women doctors would have the same options as they contemplate early retirement ... in my opinion a myth in today's economy ... most of us simply cannot afford it without beginning a new career ... especially if there are kids in college and weddings to pay for. There are trade-offs and compromises for everyone involved, men, women and their colleagues. I do think that young women going to a career in medicine need to be realistic about their goals and life plans, but if medicine is a must, then they need to be absolutely committed to making the sacrifices that will need to be made as well. We cannot expect everyone else to pick up the slack and demand special consideration just because we have young children at home. Children are non-negotiable. The career, however, is. Make your career choices sensibly and realistically if you plan on having children, or plan to wait until the kids are at a stage developmentally that their needs won't eclipse that of the job's.

Q: ' I remember one female resident who got pregnant not once but twice during residency and took maternity leave each time and managed to still graduate on time. Guess who got the shaft?'

A: Her future patients.

I am relieved to see some enlightened women understanding the importance of family and children and their central irreplacable role in that. If a woman chooses family, then career will and should come second and as such a demanding career should not be asked to change to suit for them. It is what it is.
The typical reflexive response by feminists is to argue that this is about equality, it is about fair treatment. It is a convenient way to twist an issue which at its core is about family values and the very essence of a family unit, the stuctural brick blocks of a society.

How about treating all physicians like pilots? That is, let's limit their hours to 35 per week, and recognize that it's a high-stress, high-demand field that requires people (yes, men AND women) to be well rested, not working excessive hours, and physically fit. Mistakes made from exhaustion, poor health, or excessively long hours can KILL people. (Med education is so stupid, keeping residents up on long shifts, etc.)

If men won't recognize how damaging it is to their families to work long hours, and if they won't recgonize how dangerous it is to patients, then maybe the med industry ought to be regulated to enforce shorter, smarter (dare I say more woman-like) work patterns.

I was the victim of an exhausted surgeon, and nearly died because of his mistakes. Wish I'd had a part-timer, male or female, instead of the very highly esteemed hot-shot long-hours surgeon who almost killed me because of his macho attitude toward working hours.

Medical schools should anticipate the need to accept more students if many of them are female. Simple solution, I know.

In a trully free market system this would be a non-issue! If medical practices needed more doctors, more would be trained. It's absurd that the US gov limits the number of doctors that can be trained. They are to blame for shortages.

My comment is US specific: Doctors and others here work way too many hours, both males and females. It's unhealthy, reduces the quality of our patient care and certainly is not worth the impact on our families. I agree with one of the posters above that men should take a lesson from the women who prioritize their families.

Men do not go into medicine as often as in the past because the time/cost/reward ratio is inadequate. Men chose other occupations that reward them better and regiment them less. The void is filled by women who have a comitment to family. Solution is obvious. Make medicine more attractive and quality persons will enter it in large numbers.

The "problem" isn't much of a problem if the medical industry is willing to shift with changing norms. 90+ hr weeks are a detriment to homelife, if you're male or female. But females by statistic just aren't doing it. So if it's not going to happen, the industry needs to shift. Otherwise we're setting up unrealistic expectations that simply won't be met. And there's where the problem is.

I have a female doctor who is the best GP I have ever had. Of my last 10 practitioners and the three who were women were worth 10 times the seven who were guys. One male doctor refused to refer me for a vasectomy, so I think we have to look at who exactly is persisting the "women want babies" myth - this male doc was very keen for my wife to have children!

It is males who have got the medical profession into the state it is in now and I think it is women who will rescue it.

"When someone goes for surgery they want the best guy, and that often is the guy who does the volume and is not likely to be the part timer, or the person for whom career comes second" (Gene).

This is definitely not accurate. I do not know anyone who looks at work hours as factors for choosing doctors. (Including me when I was choosing GI doctors.) Of course patients want the "best guy" but that does not necessarily mean that particular doctor works full-time. Quality and work hours are in no way connected. This is definitely a logical fallacy I see at work here.

And to respond the author of the article, I really don't think that all of media is left leaning. (Let's exclude Fox here.) Some anchors are very conservative. And yes, I agree, when referring to the Iraq Occupation, I see some liberal stances. Our media is very biased; it is not really news, but pills of propaganda. For example, we won the Iraq war 3 weeks in, but the media still labels it as a War. Thats why I like to call it an occupation. We're not fighting the government, but the rebels.

Sorry, I went on a tangent.

What a load of ****. I am not a doctor (always spelt with a lower case "D". My GP is a male, a doctor I trust and who gives more time to patients per visit than any doctor I have ever known. A doctor who takes an holistic view. A doctor who shares a practice. A practice where I have never had to wait more than 24 hours to get attention for even non-urgent problems. A doctor that I understand and believe in. A "male doctor" who only works 3 days a week because he values family time. In other words A GREAT DOCTOR!

I couldn't give a rat's ass what sex my doctor is. I am fed up of the gender argument though.

Fed up of women telling me about inequality and whining about their situation. Just get on with it.

This a FACT- The training of adult Primary Care specialists - that is General Internal Medicine specialists has essentially come to a halt due in large part to relatively poor reimbursement. Trainees are "voting with their feet" and electing to become specialists. Many of those few who do train as General Internal Medicine specialists are female and work limited hours. All of this adds up to developing shortages in years to come. Fasten your seat belts for a race to the bottom due to access limitations. Welcome the new paradigm of care where Nurses will fill the void in offices conveniently located in the back of a Walmart Supercenter. By the way .. be sure not to call after hours.... family time. When you are seriously ill, you want a doctor who is both available and competent. These attributes are rapidly vanishing as physicians sacrifice sacrificing.

An effective way to take care of the issue is have the cost on becoming a doctor paid by individuals rather than by the society and limit all financial aids in the format of debts, so subsequently the pay to the doctors will increase and women doctors will work more if all possible.

It is too stupid for someone to think of having a policy that lets men become a doctor more easily than women.

Three cheers for GirlDoc: You are so right on. Limited # trained=shortages. Too many hours= errors. Medicare= abuse of doctor's time & compensated with cash.

I would rather an intelligent surgery resident of any sex than any number of less qualified ones who will work 'full time'...if its bodies that I want, get a surgical tec and a bunch of PA's in your practice. The fact is that nowadays the female candidates for surgery residency positions are smarter, have more varied CV's and are more empathetic than the males. Are we as surgeons going to say 'no' to the best and brightest because they won't physically be there full time? If you view surgery as a mere workplace where bread and butter cases need to go through the assembly line and call needs to be covered, then maybe your practice will be fine with whomever you can fill in the spot.
I want to work with creative thinkers and professionals who are not single dimensional...they will propel surgery into the next millenium in science, patient care and technical skill. When they join a practice they will earn/become successful in accordance with their contribution.

This is why I am going to Law School. I think that women can and should become doctors. I think that men need to "suck it up" with their complaining.

I think that women need to be realistic in their career choices. One poster said she is a pre-med student and out of all of the responses, hers was by far the best.

If you want to be a doctor, do so. Expect to work a lot. Expect that you cannot have a family and have it be a happy home because if you are the mom, you will not be there.

I met a wonderful young person in an online game, who's mom is a doctor. This young person, while very happy for the mom, is very lonely, its very sad to hear this kid talk about the empty home and how tired the mom is when she gets in.

My heart goes out to that child. Remember women, if you want that MD degree, you better make sure the rest of your life can go along with it!

I sure do hope the these female docs are busy raising some male future doctors.

Wow. Same old crap.

It cuts both ways. A woman who takes of time to take care of her children is selfish. A man who takes time off for his children is a family man.

A woman who works long hard hours is selfish. A man who works long hard hours is driven.

A woman who chooses to work and have the hubby raise the kids is selfish. A man who chooses to work and have the hubby raise the kids is a good provider.

A woman who chooses a career over having kids is a bitch.

Women can't win!

I dont have time now to read every post, but heres a few points to highlight.

I have neurofibromatosis type 2, those in the medical field know this as a rare disease causing tumors.

I have had 14 operations all by male doctors..

Now, ive had all my surgery's done by the BEST doctors.. Dr fred epstein (of beth israel NY) Dr dearald brackman (house institute CA) Dr harry shuffelbarger (miami childrens hospital) My current neurosurgeon Dr john raghab and many more.

I actually prefer a more serious devoted doctor.. My doctors show up on Saturday and Sunday post op and are on call every day..

While for the most part they are light hearted, easy going and laugh.. they nonetheless are in control.

Dr shuffelbarger operates like 2 patients a day.. he is the BEST and defiantly dedicated to the job and I dont know what he makes but he's worth every penny.

Those that support socialist medicine are full of baloney...

While all men were created equal, theres something called freedom.. I want to pay for the best health care..

No, not all doctors pay their training.. its called scholarship's gender based / minority's and affirmative action may have played a role.

In the end of the day, I want the best health care money can buy.. I dont want to buy told that nurses or pharmacists should prescribe medicine.. my father has been a pharmacist for 20 years and cant prescribe what medicines I should take every time (though mostly he does)

Surgeon who work longer years can contribute more and end up pioneering new technology.

Nothing difficult at all. Simply train more doctors. That way even if they work fewer hours each the total number of doctor-hours increases. And this is good for two additional reasons - firstly, overworked doctors make more mistakes, and secondly, a better work-life balance is a benefit to society. We don't need to force women to give up their personal lives just to have a career, we are a rich society we can afford to have both.

Having a particular degree has never meant an obligation to work full-time in that field. It just means one is qualified to do so. Why is it such a problem that some people with medical degrees are not choosing to work full-time? If part-time work is worth enough that it supplies their needs, good for them. They paid for their education, and a high income is the way their investment is returned to them.

(I'm sure that plenty of people with engineering degrees, physics degrees and many other degrees are out there working part-time as well. I don't see a reason to vilify all of them.)

As a female physician I am ashamed of many of my gender in this field, primarily women who go to medical school and residency then drop out to stay at home. Medicine is not a profession for dilettantes, it is not for people who have no sense of dedication or commitment. I am committed to my family and my practice (which is full time) and I say to the women who say that you can't have it all, you just haven't tried hard enough. I feel well balanced and am happy with my life and I wish that I didn't feel like the only one.

In Britian older doctors are complaining because younger doctors (male and female) are working far less hours. Long gone are the 100 work weeks. It's gotten so bad that German doctors are coming in to work weekends. How ironic is that!

I also forward this article to my niece who is going to med school.

Please help me I am having a presentation about women and career development,so i am a male so i dont know that much about women.
From
Sizani Vuyo (Mr)

I find it interesting that when women work part-time, they are criticized by their colleagues for not making the same "lifespan of contributions" but when they work full-time, they are blasted for neglecting their families. Women cannot and should not be expected to do everything; both men and women need to realize this.