This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Major Advice needed
- Pharmacy vs cyber security
- low ucat to pharmacy/ gap year
- Audit apprenticeship
- Chemistry A-level?
- Dropping out of my degree after already starting it to pursue something else?
- Dreading next shift
- Personal Statement for both dentistry and pharmacy
- SED Huddersfield
- Dentistry Backups?
- Can you gimme step to step on being a pharmacist from what to pick for a levels?
- Feeling like I made the wrong choice with a levels
- Medicine fifth choice
- Should I carry on with my MPharm or leave with a BSc in Pharmaceutical Studies
- Will I get into any of these universities with these grades?
- Do I drop out? HELP!
- me and my part time job- help
- Is Pharmacy a good career choice?
- How to see a pharmacist?
- Should I try cybersecurity or stick with pharmacy?
Should I just stick to pharmacy?
I am in my first year of A-levels at college and have always wanted to study a medical or scientific course at university. I have excellent GCSE grades and have been told by my tutors that I am capable of A/A* in college [am doing chemistry, biology, maths and English.] If my grades are this good I am thinking of going all the way to Medicine or Pharmacy. The application date nine months away, I would like to have an idea which course to set my heart on out of those two.
My problem with Medicine is that it is full of snitches and busybodies. The GMC, along with government, promulgates endless "safeguarding" guidelines and orders doctors and medical students to report any child abuse concerns, even without proof. I cannot do this in good conscience as Social Services snatch children from innocent families in private courts. (Yes, I have evidence of this and am not just a conspiracy theorist, but cannot say much on a public forum.) Instead I would keep my suspicions to myself to avoid being an active part in state sponsored child abduction.
Is it possible for me to get through the course and into a medical career working with no or few children, without becoming a snitching apparatchik? If there is evidence- yes, evidence, a word family justice treats with as much seriousness as a burlesque or the works of Feydeau- of abuse I would act appropriately. But I have no intention of reporting bruising patterns that have a dozen possible explanations other than non-accidental injury, "precocious sexual behaviour" (what is precocious? I know there are guidelines but these fail to take the difference between children into account), nebulous abstractions such as "withdrawn affect" or perverse anti-medical nonsense such as "Factitious illness." I would treat the families of sick children with compassion, never suspicion; between observing so much human misery and being required to maintain a degree of detachment from the patient, misanthropy can easily become the deformation professionelle. I would not write reports in support of the SSD position in section 47 matters or in the family courts. I would certainly not stand up for social services' prejudices at case conferences. And as for overturning ancient Hippocratic principles and opening my files at the drop of a hat because someone has "concerns"? No way on earth.
I would probably like to be a paediatrician, not only to treat children medically but to wage war against the overzealous post-Climbie approach to work with children and families, refusing to cover the backs of "professionals" around me. But the age for a young idealistic practitioner is not the present one, with its tomes of written guidance and convoluted discipline procedures,where a well-respected consultant saying your actions are "inappropriate" can end your career while blatant law-breakers soldier on. Eliot's Ladislaw and Chekhov's surgeons, rightly derisive of the pharmacopoeia available to them, were subject to a much less rigid code based on honour and ancient principles that cannot be so easily twisted into technicalities; for this reason, I am not seriously considering specialising in paediatrics and the matter of post-MBBS specialisation is years away for me.
Based on the above, do you think the GMC would ever allow me to practice with my old-school code of honour intact, or would they be finding an excuse to remove me? I do not want to spend six years on the most difficult university subject only to be barred or restricted from practicing because an abused child presented themselves and I did not report. I could probably find a respectable justification for not doing so, such as an opinion backed by medical papers that an organic illness or injury was the correct diagnosis, but this may not save me if the snitching mentality gets any worse than it already is.
If not, pharmacy is a much better bet for me. I am aware pharmacists earn much less than doctors and have fewer opportunities for career progression but this is a small compromise for the preservation of my integrity. I am aware some safeguarding-based rules affect pharmacists, but I have spoken to experienced ones and they have said they have never been in a position of being required to report suspected abuse/neglect. As they dispense medication rather than examining patients this is not a surprise. Pharmacy has always been one of my more significant interests within medical science, in any case.
All advice is appreciated, particularly if you are anti-reporting as I am, or are already in medical school.
My problem with Medicine is that it is full of snitches and busybodies. The GMC, along with government, promulgates endless "safeguarding" guidelines and orders doctors and medical students to report any child abuse concerns, even without proof. I cannot do this in good conscience as Social Services snatch children from innocent families in private courts. (Yes, I have evidence of this and am not just a conspiracy theorist, but cannot say much on a public forum.) Instead I would keep my suspicions to myself to avoid being an active part in state sponsored child abduction.
Is it possible for me to get through the course and into a medical career working with no or few children, without becoming a snitching apparatchik? If there is evidence- yes, evidence, a word family justice treats with as much seriousness as a burlesque or the works of Feydeau- of abuse I would act appropriately. But I have no intention of reporting bruising patterns that have a dozen possible explanations other than non-accidental injury, "precocious sexual behaviour" (what is precocious? I know there are guidelines but these fail to take the difference between children into account), nebulous abstractions such as "withdrawn affect" or perverse anti-medical nonsense such as "Factitious illness." I would treat the families of sick children with compassion, never suspicion; between observing so much human misery and being required to maintain a degree of detachment from the patient, misanthropy can easily become the deformation professionelle. I would not write reports in support of the SSD position in section 47 matters or in the family courts. I would certainly not stand up for social services' prejudices at case conferences. And as for overturning ancient Hippocratic principles and opening my files at the drop of a hat because someone has "concerns"? No way on earth.
I would probably like to be a paediatrician, not only to treat children medically but to wage war against the overzealous post-Climbie approach to work with children and families, refusing to cover the backs of "professionals" around me. But the age for a young idealistic practitioner is not the present one, with its tomes of written guidance and convoluted discipline procedures,where a well-respected consultant saying your actions are "inappropriate" can end your career while blatant law-breakers soldier on. Eliot's Ladislaw and Chekhov's surgeons, rightly derisive of the pharmacopoeia available to them, were subject to a much less rigid code based on honour and ancient principles that cannot be so easily twisted into technicalities; for this reason, I am not seriously considering specialising in paediatrics and the matter of post-MBBS specialisation is years away for me.
Based on the above, do you think the GMC would ever allow me to practice with my old-school code of honour intact, or would they be finding an excuse to remove me? I do not want to spend six years on the most difficult university subject only to be barred or restricted from practicing because an abused child presented themselves and I did not report. I could probably find a respectable justification for not doing so, such as an opinion backed by medical papers that an organic illness or injury was the correct diagnosis, but this may not save me if the snitching mentality gets any worse than it already is.
If not, pharmacy is a much better bet for me. I am aware pharmacists earn much less than doctors and have fewer opportunities for career progression but this is a small compromise for the preservation of my integrity. I am aware some safeguarding-based rules affect pharmacists, but I have spoken to experienced ones and they have said they have never been in a position of being required to report suspected abuse/neglect. As they dispense medication rather than examining patients this is not a surprise. Pharmacy has always been one of my more significant interests within medical science, in any case.
All advice is appreciated, particularly if you are anti-reporting as I am, or are already in medical school.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ScheduleII
I am in my first year of A-levels at college and have always wanted to study a medical or scientific course at university. I have excellent GCSE grades and have been told by my tutors that I am capable of A/A* in college [am doing chemistry, biology, maths and English.] If my grades are this good I am thinking of going all the way to Medicine or Pharmacy. The application date nine months away, I would like to have an idea which course to set my heart on out of those two.
My problem with Medicine is that it is full of snitches and busybodies. The GMC, along with government, promulgates endless "safeguarding" guidelines and orders doctors and medical students to report any child abuse concerns, even without proof. I cannot do this in good conscience as Social Services snatch children from innocent families in private courts. (Yes, I have evidence of this and am not just a conspiracy theorist, but cannot say much on a public forum.) Instead I would keep my suspicions to myself to avoid being an active part in state sponsored child abduction.
Is it possible for me to get through the course and into a medical career working with no or few children, without becoming a snitching apparatchik? If there is evidence- yes, evidence, a word family justice treats with as much seriousness as a burlesque or the works of Feydeau- of abuse I would act appropriately. But I have no intention of reporting bruising patterns that have a dozen possible explanations other than non-accidental injury, "precocious sexual behaviour" (what is precocious? I know there are guidelines but these fail to take the difference between children into account), nebulous abstractions such as "withdrawn affect" or perverse anti-medical nonsense such as "Factitious illness." I would treat the families of sick children with compassion, never suspicion; between observing so much human misery and being required to maintain a degree of detachment from the patient, misanthropy can easily become the deformation professionelle. I would not write reports in support of the SSD position in section 47 matters or in the family courts. I would certainly not stand up for social services' prejudices at case conferences. And as for overturning ancient Hippocratic principles and opening my files at the drop of a hat because someone has "concerns"? No way on earth.
I would probably like to be a paediatrician, not only to treat children medically but to wage war against the overzealous post-Climbie approach to work with children and families, refusing to cover the backs of "professionals" around me. But the age for a young idealistic practitioner is not the present one, with its tomes of written guidance and convoluted discipline procedures,where a well-respected consultant saying your actions are "inappropriate" can end your career while blatant law-breakers soldier on. Eliot's Ladislaw and Chekhov's surgeons, rightly derisive of the pharmacopoeia available to them, were subject to a much less rigid code based on honour and ancient principles that cannot be so easily twisted into technicalities; for this reason, I am not seriously considering specialising in paediatrics and the matter of post-MBBS specialisation is years away for me.
Based on the above, do you think the GMC would ever allow me to practice with my old-school code of honour intact, or would they be finding an excuse to remove me? I do not want to spend six years on the most difficult university subject only to be barred or restricted from practicing because an abused child presented themselves and I did not report. I could probably find a respectable justification for not doing so, such as an opinion backed by medical papers that an organic illness or injury was the correct diagnosis, but this may not save me if the snitching mentality gets any worse than it already is.
If not, pharmacy is a much better bet for me. I am aware pharmacists earn much less than doctors and have fewer opportunities for career progression but this is a small compromise for the preservation of my integrity. I am aware some safeguarding-based rules affect pharmacists, but I have spoken to experienced ones and they have said they have never been in a position of being required to report suspected abuse/neglect. As they dispense medication rather than examining patients this is not a surprise. Pharmacy has always been one of my more significant interests within medical science, in any case.
All advice is appreciated, particularly if you are anti-reporting as I am, or are already in medical school.
My problem with Medicine is that it is full of snitches and busybodies. The GMC, along with government, promulgates endless "safeguarding" guidelines and orders doctors and medical students to report any child abuse concerns, even without proof. I cannot do this in good conscience as Social Services snatch children from innocent families in private courts. (Yes, I have evidence of this and am not just a conspiracy theorist, but cannot say much on a public forum.) Instead I would keep my suspicions to myself to avoid being an active part in state sponsored child abduction.
Is it possible for me to get through the course and into a medical career working with no or few children, without becoming a snitching apparatchik? If there is evidence- yes, evidence, a word family justice treats with as much seriousness as a burlesque or the works of Feydeau- of abuse I would act appropriately. But I have no intention of reporting bruising patterns that have a dozen possible explanations other than non-accidental injury, "precocious sexual behaviour" (what is precocious? I know there are guidelines but these fail to take the difference between children into account), nebulous abstractions such as "withdrawn affect" or perverse anti-medical nonsense such as "Factitious illness." I would treat the families of sick children with compassion, never suspicion; between observing so much human misery and being required to maintain a degree of detachment from the patient, misanthropy can easily become the deformation professionelle. I would not write reports in support of the SSD position in section 47 matters or in the family courts. I would certainly not stand up for social services' prejudices at case conferences. And as for overturning ancient Hippocratic principles and opening my files at the drop of a hat because someone has "concerns"? No way on earth.
I would probably like to be a paediatrician, not only to treat children medically but to wage war against the overzealous post-Climbie approach to work with children and families, refusing to cover the backs of "professionals" around me. But the age for a young idealistic practitioner is not the present one, with its tomes of written guidance and convoluted discipline procedures,where a well-respected consultant saying your actions are "inappropriate" can end your career while blatant law-breakers soldier on. Eliot's Ladislaw and Chekhov's surgeons, rightly derisive of the pharmacopoeia available to them, were subject to a much less rigid code based on honour and ancient principles that cannot be so easily twisted into technicalities; for this reason, I am not seriously considering specialising in paediatrics and the matter of post-MBBS specialisation is years away for me.
Based on the above, do you think the GMC would ever allow me to practice with my old-school code of honour intact, or would they be finding an excuse to remove me? I do not want to spend six years on the most difficult university subject only to be barred or restricted from practicing because an abused child presented themselves and I did not report. I could probably find a respectable justification for not doing so, such as an opinion backed by medical papers that an organic illness or injury was the correct diagnosis, but this may not save me if the snitching mentality gets any worse than it already is.
If not, pharmacy is a much better bet for me. I am aware pharmacists earn much less than doctors and have fewer opportunities for career progression but this is a small compromise for the preservation of my integrity. I am aware some safeguarding-based rules affect pharmacists, but I have spoken to experienced ones and they have said they have never been in a position of being required to report suspected abuse/neglect. As they dispense medication rather than examining patients this is not a surprise. Pharmacy has always been one of my more significant interests within medical science, in any case.
All advice is appreciated, particularly if you are anti-reporting as I am, or are already in medical school.
No I don't think you want career advice, you want an axe to grind
(edited 13 years ago)
You described the role of a dispensing assistant, not of a Pharmacist.
You don't seem fully aware of what the role of a Pharmacist entails, and your view seems very stereotypical. The role of a Pharmacist is not just to dispense medicines... Nowadays, hospital pharmacists go on the wards with the doctors and there is a lot of patient interaction both with community and hospital pharmacy.
There are also many opportunities for career progression, and many different career paths to take. Consultant pharmacists can also earn up £90000 (doesn't sound bad to me).
With regards to your strong views on reporting child abuse, it sounds as though medicine may not be the right career for you, as if you are faced with a situation like that you may get into trouble if it isn't handled the way the GMC and government wants.
You don't seem fully aware of what the role of a Pharmacist entails, and your view seems very stereotypical. The role of a Pharmacist is not just to dispense medicines... Nowadays, hospital pharmacists go on the wards with the doctors and there is a lot of patient interaction both with community and hospital pharmacy.
There are also many opportunities for career progression, and many different career paths to take. Consultant pharmacists can also earn up £90000 (doesn't sound bad to me).
With regards to your strong views on reporting child abuse, it sounds as though medicine may not be the right career for you, as if you are faced with a situation like that you may get into trouble if it isn't handled the way the GMC and government wants.
Original post by ScheduleII
I do not want to spend six years on the most difficult university subject only to be barred or restricted from practicing because an abused child presented themselves and I did not report.
I'm calling troll now.
If you plan to apply practice with some sort of grudge as you have described as above maybe pharmacy would be best suited for you, you work as a doctor would have no place for scepticism against patients or the GMC who allow you to practice, and this scepticism could in turn get you into trouble, from my experience in medicine/hospitals you are expected to play ball all the time.
I have said I have no scepticism against patients whatsoever and this would be my "problem" in the eyes of some, not all, of the figures in authority. Some take a leaf out of Terry Gilliam's book in Brazil: "Suspicion Breeds Confidence." And I have respect for the GMC but it is just as open to corruption as any other body wielding significant power over a field of human experience. Even central government is not perfect. I have no grudge against people who report genuine child abuse cases but against snitches who like to follow up petty concerns and support SS, psychologists and teachers rather than the actual patient and family. The deaths of Baby Peter, Khyra Ishaq, Climbie etc. and WTSC 2006 /2010 have given these characters their raison d'etre and they cherish it very much. The new government is not nearly as authoritarian as Labour and has already crushed ContactPoint (which was a baleful and ill-thought out idea.)
And winterbone, what makes this a troll? As far as I am aware a troll is a person who makes false statements online in an attempt to get attention. Maybe you misunderstood that point, but I mean if I did not know the child was being abused but was drawn into it later as part of an SCR and the powers that be wanted someone to blame; a junior doctor would make a good scapegoat. I do not mean deliberately allowing abuse to happen, which the sentence taken out of context may suggest.
And winterbone, what makes this a troll? As far as I am aware a troll is a person who makes false statements online in an attempt to get attention. Maybe you misunderstood that point, but I mean if I did not know the child was being abused but was drawn into it later as part of an SCR and the powers that be wanted someone to blame; a junior doctor would make a good scapegoat. I do not mean deliberately allowing abuse to happen, which the sentence taken out of context may suggest.
If you have any suspicions about a vulnerable person being abused or neglected it is your moral obligation to notify the authorities. If you don't think you would be able to do this, perhaps a profession where you are not put in that kind of situation would suit you better.
On a side note, your argumentum verbosium is very immature.
On a side note, your argumentum verbosium is very immature.
Original post by Beska
If you have any suspicions about a vulnerable person being abused or neglected it is your moral obligation to notify the authorities. If you don't think you would be able to do this, perhaps a profession where you are not put in that kind of situation would suit you better.
On a side note, your argumentum verbosium is very immature.
On a side note, your argumentum verbosium is very immature.
My argumentum verbosium? You think that citing evidence is proof by verbosity? I have good moral & practical reasoning for not reporting child abuse suspicions without proof.
Original post by ScheduleII
My argumentum verbosium? You think that citing evidence is proof by verbosity? I have good moral & practical reasoning for not reporting child abuse suspicions without proof.
You know full well there's a difference between citing evidence and proof through verbosity, and your argument is precarious through the fact it is held on by the latter.
I understand you have your own prerogative on why you disagree with accountability, especially when it comes to neglect but I, too, have my own opinion.
The process for reporting neglect, either in children of vulnerable adults, probably differs by trust. However, in my trust it is a suspicion that is reported and not neglect. It is then out of your hands: it is not your decision to decide if something is neglect or not.
The difference lies in the fact that the logical fallacy of proof through verbosity consists of a large amount of data being quoted without the appropriate logical connections between them or relative to the original question. It is used when a person has no leg to stand on from first principles, or is not confident of those principles; they may obfuscate the argument with masses of irrelevant or semi-relevant information.
On the other hand, I have provided relevant data and propositions to explain why I am not a snitch. Following trust procedure may "cover" you legally but if the child is taken by social services when nothing was wrong, I would find it unconscionable. On the other hand, if I made no referral and supported the family only to find they were dishonest after all I would blame the family and possibly the police.
On the other hand, I have provided relevant data and propositions to explain why I am not a snitch. Following trust procedure may "cover" you legally but if the child is taken by social services when nothing was wrong, I would find it unconscionable. On the other hand, if I made no referral and supported the family only to find they were dishonest after all I would blame the family and possibly the police.
Original post by ScheduleII
I would find it unconscionable
Pick a less accountable profession, then. Simple.
I have said that, in spite of myself, I would not even attempt to go into paediatric medicine as my views are against the consensus there. I am talking about whether it would be possible to get into the medical profession at all without snitching to the authorities. I believe it is but am looking for the opinions of others before committing myself to it; I have nine months before it is necessary to apply but am already being asked regularly about my HE ambitions and told to aim higher, so this needs sorting out.
All professionals are accountable in some way; it is part of what being a member of a liberal profession means. The precise definition of this and its enforcement is at issue here, I have no problem with being accountable provided that I do not have to be a party to corruption and am not expected to support liars or perjuring cheats.
All professionals are accountable in some way; it is part of what being a member of a liberal profession means. The precise definition of this and its enforcement is at issue here, I have no problem with being accountable provided that I do not have to be a party to corruption and am not expected to support liars or perjuring cheats.
I don't think you should do medicine, or Pharmacy; just play with this
Original post by ScheduleII
And winterbone, what makes this a troll? As far as I am aware a troll is a person who makes false statements online in an attempt to get attention. Maybe you misunderstood that point, but I mean if I did not know the child was being abused but was drawn into it later as part of an SCR and the powers that be wanted someone to blame; a junior doctor would make a good scapegoat. I do not mean deliberately allowing abuse to happen, which the sentence taken out of context may suggest.
And winterbone, what makes this a troll? As far as I am aware a troll is a person who makes false statements online in an attempt to get attention. Maybe you misunderstood that point, but I mean if I did not know the child was being abused but was drawn into it later as part of an SCR and the powers that be wanted someone to blame; a junior doctor would make a good scapegoat. I do not mean deliberately allowing abuse to happen, which the sentence taken out of context may suggest.
oh but you are seeking attention; rather than a diatribe you could have asked "would I be liable to be dismissed for not reporting cases of potential child abuse?"
I am not a rebel and I do not think the medical authorities are corrupt, once again. I think that social workers and courts are corrupt and once you report a case it is up to them how it proceeds. I have very extensive evidence of this. Immaturity is unquestioningly obeying policy; I have read works on medical ethics which state that even the law itself can be broken under the right circumstances. The example given was a pharmacist supplying morphine to a terminal cancer patient despite an error in the prescription paperwork, where there is no out of hours doctor who can quickly write a correct prescription and no other solution. The duty to the patient is legally, ethically and practically superior to the duty to be submissive to your bosses.
I am seeking honest advice rather than attention. And I find KingofSpades likening me to a baby is quite ridiculous. Do I speak like a baby? If this is babyish, then what is the register of tabloid newspapers and C grade students? Careful consideration of, and sticking to, a code of honour is a grown-up thing done out of a duty to be moral.
I am seeking honest advice rather than attention. And I find KingofSpades likening me to a baby is quite ridiculous. Do I speak like a baby? If this is babyish, then what is the register of tabloid newspapers and C grade students? Careful consideration of, and sticking to, a code of honour is a grown-up thing done out of a duty to be moral.
Original post by ScheduleII
I am not a rebel and I do not think the medical authorities are corrupt, once again. I think that social workers and courts are corrupt and once you report a case it is up to them how it proceeds. I have very extensive evidence of this. Immaturity is unquestioningly obeying policy; I have read works on medical ethics which state that even the law itself can be broken under the right circumstances. The example given was a pharmacist supplying morphine to a terminal cancer patient despite an error in the prescription paperwork, where there is no out of hours doctor who can quickly write a correct prescription and no other solution. The duty to the patient is legally, ethically and practically superior to the duty to be submissive to your bosses.
I am seeking honest advice rather than attention. And I find KingofSpades likening me to a baby is quite ridiculous. Do I speak like a baby? If this is babyish, then what is the register of tabloid newspapers and C grade students? Careful consideration of, and sticking to, a code of honour is a grown-up thing done out of a duty to be moral.
I am seeking honest advice rather than attention. And I find KingofSpades likening me to a baby is quite ridiculous. Do I speak like a baby? If this is babyish, then what is the register of tabloid newspapers and C grade students? Careful consideration of, and sticking to, a code of honour is a grown-up thing done out of a duty to be moral.
well then if you are as you say you are, and have divined a set of stoical ethical laws, why bother to query when you already know the answer. I thought that disregarding the rules was a pastime stamped out by schooling- by all means do so, and be happy that your choice was the right one, but don't expect to be able to succeed and operate in institutions that benefit from universality.
First a baby, now a Buddha. I was referring to the discretion and flexibility that professionals have to make their own decisions dependent on the specifics of the case . The government may have applied some bureaucratic proletarianisation of medicine but that is, mirabile dictu, not complete. Disregarding the rules is usually destructive to society, else man would be content to live in anarchy. Yet the point of an education is never, except in a tyranny or military boot camp, to drill out individuality and replace it with inviolable precepts from on high. You appear to have missed this point. I am not asking whether my moral code is good or bad. I am asking if it is compatible with the practice of medicine under our current law and protocol.
Original post by ScheduleII
First a baby, now a Buddha. I was referring to the discretion and flexibility that professionals have to make their own decisions dependent on the specifics of the case . The government may have applied some bureaucratic proletarianisation of medicine but that is, mirabile dictu, not complete. Disregarding the rules is usually destructive to society, else man would be content to live in anarchy. Yet the point of an education is never, except in a tyranny or military boot camp, to drill out individuality and replace it with inviolable precepts from on high. You appear to have missed this point. I am not asking whether my moral code is good or bad. I am asking if it is compatible with the practice of medicine under our current law and protocol.
and I implied no
Related discussions
- Major Advice needed
- Pharmacy vs cyber security
- low ucat to pharmacy/ gap year
- Audit apprenticeship
- Chemistry A-level?
- Dropping out of my degree after already starting it to pursue something else?
- Dreading next shift
- Personal Statement for both dentistry and pharmacy
- SED Huddersfield
- Dentistry Backups?
- Can you gimme step to step on being a pharmacist from what to pick for a levels?
- Feeling like I made the wrong choice with a levels
- Medicine fifth choice
- Should I carry on with my MPharm or leave with a BSc in Pharmaceutical Studies
- Will I get into any of these universities with these grades?
- Do I drop out? HELP!
- me and my part time job- help
- Is Pharmacy a good career choice?
- How to see a pharmacist?
- Should I try cybersecurity or stick with pharmacy?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
