This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Which doctor is the "real" doctor?

Scroll to see replies

I cannot imagine life without a doctor who treats me when I need it and the one who is constantly doing researching with a view to innovating the means we take care of ourselves.

Reply 61

bertstare

Original post by ChemistBoy

But that assumes that people with PhD's can't have big impacts outside research, which is really odd - or that you place medical doctors' value far above anyone else's in society.

But we aren't talking about research, we are talking about what people with PhDs do as their careers. It is the only way to be fair if you want to compare against the medical profession as a whole.

But, I don't want to! That is my point. It may be highly unlikely for a research scientist to go into clinical training it is hardly impossible or unheard of. The fact that I know several people with PhD's who have gone on to train as medical doctors is a case in point. I fail to see what your real point is here.

I thought OP's question was more of a direct "researchers vs doctors" question, ie. people who devote their career to scientific research vs. clinicians who devote theirs to treating patients, and looking at which is seen as more valuable to society on average. Because otherwise we're just arguing semantics, and what the word "doctor" means both historically and colloquially. In which case you could say that research doctors are the real doctors (at least in the UK) because medical doctors only have an MBBS degree not an MD, and dentists only have a BDS not a DDS.

It's probably impossible to simply compare what impact "someone with a PhD" and "someone who's a doctor" will have. A PhD holder could go into further research, could go into teaching, could do lots of things. Equally, a doctor could go into research, teaching or other things, so thats quite a pointless comparison as it's totally vague.

Reply 62

ChemistBoy

Original post by bertstare

It was poorly worded then really. If we are comparing the academy to the medical profession I'm not sure that the medics win really. Can we honestly say that academics don't have a profound impact on our society, given that they educate a significant proportion of our society as well as produce regular breakthroughs in research & understanding? If we are just considering scientists then there are significantly fewer of them than practicing doctors (there are about 250,000 registered doctors in the UK, but only 180,000 academics in total including all non-scientific disciplines).

Valuing research output is also very difficult. We may see the immediate benefits of a physician's work but not so with research.

It's probably impossible to simply compare what impact "someone with a PhD" and "someone who's a doctor" will have. A PhD holder could go into further research, could go into teaching, could do lots of things. Equally, a doctor could go into research, teaching or other things, so thats quite a pointless comparison as it's totally vague.

Exactly my point.

Reply 63

bertstare

Original post by ChemistBoy

Obviously an educator would have a profound impact, but how many research scientists do actually spend a significant portion of their career teaching, out of interest? I'm guessing research is something you are going into?

I think it's a bit of a dumb question in general, but I simply can't see how the average researcher (who spends most of their life in research not education) would have a bigger impact on society than a clinician, who in every case would have either improved the quality of life of, or saved the life of innumerable people. In the cases where researchers discover something which has a huge impact on the future of medicine or technology, its a different case, but those the exception not the rule really.

Reply 64

cl_steele

Original post by Democracy

Thing is, medical school in the USA is graduate entry only whereas here you can study medicine as a first degree straight out of school. Why should British medical undergraduates be classed differently to other undergraduates? A science undergraduate gets a bachelor of science, therefore it logically follows that a medical undergraduate should get a bachelor of medicine and surgery - not a doctorate.

The distiction between MB ChB and MD is something we've got right imho.

Dont get me wrong i wasnt slamming med students in any way i openly admit im not the most knowledgeable on the topic i was simply pointing out that the US distinction between the different 'doctors' that are around be they practicing medicine or theology etc.

Reply 65

ukmed108

Original post by Democracy

I prefer MD. The thing is, in Canada, medical students are given an MD, yet its not a postgraduate degree. Thats why they call it undergraduate medicine in Canada. There are some students who get into medical school after a few years of undergrad without a BSc.

The problem i see with MB ChB is first the fact that there are so many ways to call it: MB ChB, MBBS, BM BCh, MB BChir, BM. It causes needless confusion.

The second is that the MD is a 1st professional degree, not a doctorate in the US and doctors should be called MD, it also fits well with "medical doctor - MD". It is simpler and easier to use in conversation.

Thirdly, I think since many medical students study 5 or 6 years and a great number get a BSc with it, a bachelor's degree just isn't fitting, which is why i think MD is more suitable.

Fourthly, the traditional MD doctorate in the UK, is rapidly becoming obsolete. First there is confusion between the MD doctorate and the MD (US) version. Second, the degree isn't very common among doctors and the most important thing is that it is similar to the PhD and there is an overlapping effect.

Both are research degrees, the PhD is longer, more well known and more respected. There is a research paper discussing whether or not to eliminate the MD research degree in favour of widespread adoption of the PhD. I'm in favor of standardizing degrees across the world as the world becomes more global. Australia is already switching its system to the American version. India awards the title MD after post-graduate training. Only a few countries still follow the UK system by degree.

Lastly, it fits with history. the MD degree was first granted in Scotland in the 1700s and 1800s, it was adopted by the US. Scotland switched to the MB ChB in the late 19th century. The MD degree is actually a UK invention so it would be appropriate to re-appropriate it.

If unwilling to adopt the MD degree as a primary medical qualification, at least eliminate the awkward UK MD in favor of the PhD and standardize the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery to at least one naming system instead of 5-6 (I'd prefer MBBS)

(edited 10 years ago)

David Tenant

Original post by bertstare

Obviously an educator would have a profound impact, but how many research scientists do actually spend a significant portion of their career teaching, out of interest?

Well they spend enough time in order to design, run and teach degree courses in every university throughout the world, which are taken by the the future politicians, lawyers, teachers, academics, business leaders, senior civil servants (even medical doctors in some cases) and a wide range of other professionals that help our societies to function. All that on top of what are essentially full-time research careers which themselves involve the education of young researchers to continue after them. Just because they don't do it full-time doesn't mean their contribution isn't massively important.

I'm guessing research is something you are going into?

No, it's something I tried but had to move on from as you essentially have to be committed 110% to it, work very long hours for relatively poor pay, have crap job security and be prepared to move country every year or two at the start. Unfortunately I have family commitments that mean I can't live that kind of life, I know work in industrial R&D for a major energy company.

I think it's a bit of a dumb question in general, but I simply can't see how the average researcher (who spends most of their life in research not education) would have a bigger impact on society than a clinician, who in every case would have either improved the quality of life of, or saved the life of innumerable people. In the cases where researchers discover something which has a huge impact on the future of medicine or technology, its a different case, but those the exception not the rule really.

Two things:

1) That ignores the impact of these people as educators as I have pointed out above.
2) We are talking about a very small number of very bright people here, their average isn't that bad actually. I can think of a significant number of academics at my local university alone that are making quite large contributions to my industrial field and that is just one regional university in the UK.

Reply 68

Eugine Lyimo

Medical Doctor to my side is the real doctor because I am also taking it

Reply 69

fluttershy

Just to go back to the more general public perception, I support it's significant that the majority of TV and Film Doctors are in medicine, and of cource there are plenty of medical dramas showing off the medical profession. As well as those things focussing on medics, there are so many other shows and films where they are secondary characters but play a big part. Even when it comes to sci-fi, especially mainstream, a "Doctor" is most likely to be a medic, especially if shown in a heroic light. Even where the mad/evil Doctor is usually a medic or medically trained.
PHD Doctors in popular culture tend to be nerds doing nothing much important, especially in comedy (Big Bang Theory, Ross from Friends etc) and the fact that they are not "real" Doctors will often be used as a joke, or they will be fairly souless and spinless "scientists" who will spend most of the time getting in the way, getting into trouble or getting killed, and generally being overshadowed (and even outsmarted) by their uneducated collegues. That is unless they are professors, in which case suddenly they are brilliant. The only exceptions tend to be when the fact that they are a Doctor isn't a big part of their character, (often it's a plot point to explain why they are where they are, or why they have certain knowledge or skills, but really goes no further than that), or it's something that's aimed at a more educated and intelligant audience (less mainstream sci-fi). Oh or when it's THE Doctor (who has not once as far as I remember been shown to have more than basic medical knowledge).
I think though, the public tends to respect medical Doctors in the same way it respects the military, police, firefighters, pilots and the like, rarther than from a purely academic point of view. It's not a new thing either. Even a common surgeon who could do little more than quickly whip off a limb was fairly well respected, especially if they were particularly fast. Academics though have always been viewed as stuffy and distant.

Reply 70

ANARCHY__

Is the correct answer Doctor Who?

Reply 71

Mark85

Prima facie, I just respect both minimally within the confines of the area of their expertise/experience/abilities. That is all.

As to which I respect more, well, neither. I mean, I would respect a great doctor more than I would respect someone with a crappy scrapped together PhD and I would respect a PhD showing great insight/scholarship/ideas more than a crappy doctor.

Reply 72

Mark85

Original post by Craghyrax

Personally I don't really think that they can be compared because they are very different types of qualification, based on different types of knowledge and skill, that are valuable in different ways.

This. I mean you might as well ask: what do you respect more, a loss adjuster or a business analyst for a paper wholesaling company.

Reply 73

Shengis14

You can still get a MD in some British Universities. For instance, St. Andrews offers a two year MD programme but only for medical alumni of the university

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 74

Kinkerz

Original post by Shengis14

You can still get a MD in some British Universities. For instance, St. Andrews offers a two year MD programme but only for medical alumni of the university

But it's not the same thing as an American M.D., it's a research degree in addition to the primary medical qualification.

Reply 75

ukmed108

Original post by Shengis14

Most UK unis offer that MD to their own graduates.

It is in desperate need of being scrapped.

Its one of those awkward research degrees that is confused with a lesser degree (the US MD) pretty much everywhere in the world and yet is also truly worse than a PhD because it takes 2 years rather than 3-4 years to finish.

Not only that but the standards are completely different between different universities. For example. Edinburgh's MD is 2 years full time research. St Andrew's MD can be achieved by submitting some publications to the uni for evaluation or it can be done in 2 years of research.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 76

CalDem

We should return to calling medical doctors Physicians unless they also hold an actual doctorate - as they only hold a bachelor's in UK.

The title 'Doctor' is one which confers great academic esteem, we should not therefore dole it out to someone who has only did 4 years of study.

That said, we should still respect physicians for they're difficult and respectable career choice.

Reply 77

Democracy

Original post by CalDem

1) Medical school is usually 5 years long.

2) Doctors will have done far more than 5 years of study anyway, that's just the time it takes to get the primary medical qualification.

3) It's hardly being "doled" out, it has been earned - medical schools aren't diploma mills you know!

Reply 78

Hype en Ecosse

Original post by CalDem

It's 5-6 years of study, followed by copious amounts of postgraduate study and training. Someone with a PhD will have undertaken 6-7 years of study on average.