Highest earning specialties within Medicine?

Original post by *pitseleh*

Fair enough. Just thought the repeated references to 'Pharmacy' were weird in a thread about medical specialties.

You're right, it is weird (same goes for physio, literally wut).

Reply 22

Chief Wiggum

Original post by georgem93

I’ve been working in pharmacy for 7 years now lol.
To be honest, I would argue that in the future it should be considered a medical speciality with the increased work load and responsibility being put on pharmacists.

inb4 thread turns into a 10 page argument over this one post.

Reply 23

Original post by georgem93

I’ve been working in pharmacy for 7 years now lol.
To be honest, I would argue that in the future it should be considered a medical speciality with the increased work load and responsibility being put on pharmacists.

Again, fair enough. :smile:

It wasn't clear from your first post whether you knew or not.

I'm not going to comment on your other statement, except to say I don't think it's something that an individual working in the field can be objective about. I don't know what it's like to work in your role, any more than you know what it's like to work in mine (assuming you're not one of the rare people who's done both medical and pharmacy degrees).

Reply 24

G-Sci

17

Original post by *pitseleh*

Again, fair enough. :smile:

It wasn't clear from your first post whether you knew or not.

I'm not going to comment on your other statement, except to say I don't think it's something that an individual working in the field can be objective about. I don't know what it's like to work in your role, any more than you know what it's like to work in mine (assuming you're not one of the rare people who's done both medical and pharmacy degrees).

I’m not a pharmacist, I have a BSc in biomedicine and I’m doing my MSc in Cancer Biology. I just have a lot of experience in the field and have worked with executives.

I’m not a medical student nor a doctor, but I have some understanding purely from being a patient under the care of a range of specialties and having good relationships with most of my consultants. I always find myself defending waiting times to be seen etc 😂.

Reply 25

PleaseHelppppp

OP

Original post by Chief Wiggum

inb4 thread turns into a 10 page argument over this one post.

Reply 26

PleaseHelppppp

OP

Original post by Democracy

You're right, it is weird (same goes for physio, literally wut).

Check private message.

Reply 27

Etomidate

15

Original post by georgem93

I’ve been working in pharmacy for 7 years now lol.
To be honest, I would argue that in the future it should be considered a medical speciality with the increased work load and responsibility being put on pharmacists.

Except it’s not, though, is it?

Reply 28

ForestCat

18

There is already a clinical pharmacology and therapeutics medical speciality btw (they are not however, pharmacists)
http://www.st3recruitment.org.uk/specialties/clinical-pharmacology

Reply 29

nexttime

22

I will make an argument for GPs. Yes, consultant neurosurgeons likely have a higher average income, but becoming said consultant neurosurgeon takes many years. Long training, PHDs, academic fellowships etc. Becoming a GP takes 3 years post-graduation. A GP who became a full-time partner early on could have a half million pound 'lead' or more in terms of cumulative earnings vs a neurosurgeon by the time they reach consultancy. The neurosurgeon will then start catching up, but again: that income is likely to be skewed toward the latter end of a career as private income is heavily experience-dependent. By retirement, the neurosurgeon will most likely have earned more, BUT for the majority of the working lifetime he would have been behind the GP. Is it the final wealth on retirement that is important, or is it how wealthy you were through your lifetime?

Very difficult to quantify, but just an angle to consider.

Reply 30

PleaseHelppppp

OP

Original post by nexttime

I will make an argument for GPs. Yes, consultant neurosurgeons likely have a higher average income, but becoming said consultant neurosurgeon takes many years. Long training, PHDs, academic fellowships etc. Becoming a GP takes 3 years post-graduation. A GP who became a full-time partner early on could have a half million pound 'lead' or more in terms of cumulative earnings vs a neurosurgeon by the time they reach consultancy. The neurosurgeon will then start catching up, but again: that income is likely to be skewed toward the latter end of a career as private income is heavily experience-dependent. By retirement, the neurosurgeon will most likely have earned more, BUT for the majority of the working lifetime he would have been behind the GP. Is it the final wealth on retirement that is important, or is it how wealthy you were through your lifetime?

Very difficult to quantify, but just an angle to consider.

Very true. In reality, GP looks more worthy.

Reply 31

N/A IS THE NAME

16

Surgeons earn a lot, they work long days and varying times of day. They also require a lot of skills

Reply 32

ahorey

There seems to be a divide happening, where “sub-sub Specialities” are becoming more commonplace. In ophthalmology we had medical ophthalmologists and surgical ophthalmologists, same for fractures/trauma where there were medical drs and surgical drs. I can see why they are splitting and can only see it as a good thing :smile:

There are already diagnostic radiologists and medical/clinical radiologists so it’s definitely happening.

One of the reasons why I love medicine so much, there are so many options to choose a career from and must admit the option of being a GP with a special interest is very close to the top of my option list. We have a Dr here who is a working GP and also the pre-hospital trauma doctor for the trust, so when he gets the call off he goes in his doc car. Sounds ideal to me!

Reply 33

Chief Wiggum

Original post by clouddbubbles

i’m not trying to be rude or anything, i’m just curious but why do you want to know this? do you want to do medicine ‘just for the money’??

ive always wondered this too, just curious to know why you are - is it just because you’re interested or another reason?? :smile:

I think it's reasonable to try to find out how much you'd earn for various career paths. Money is an important consideration for many people.

Reply 34

Chief Wiggum

Original post by Volibear

Whilst I agree, chances are OP is still in school. If they are asking this because they are considering medicine for the cash, it would be worthwhile pointing out that they are a very long way away from specialising, some specialities are way more competitive than others, and they are going to be in the career for a long time and would probably be better off not narrowing themselves down to a career that pays more, over one they will enjoy.

Yeah, I would agree.

But it's actually quite difficult to find info online about which specialties pay more in the UK, and the differences can be reasonably significant. Some people will care about that, some won't, and that's fine.

I just don't think we should be saying that it's undesirable for someone to be thinking about this.

Reply 35

clouddbubbles

21

Original post by Chief Wiggum

I think it's reasonable to try to find out how much you'd earn for various career paths. Money is an important consideration for many people.

yeah definitely, i wasn’t saying that it was unreasonable for them to be asking, i said i was interested too?!

i was just raising the point that some people might think he/she just wants to do it for the money - not my opinion

Reply 36

Original post by N/A IS THE NAME

Surgeons earn a lot, they work long days and varying times of day. They also require a lot of skills

So do most physicians. Curious as to why you singled out surgeons?

Reply 37

nexttime

22

Original post by *pitseleh*

So do most physicians. Curious as to why you singled out surgeons?

I think there's a perception among the general public that surgeons didn't so much choose surgery, but rather their amazing unique Skills became apparent at some point and they were Chosen as one of the few able to truly hold a scalpel.

As opposed to the reality: 'you've done an audit and presented a poster, congrats here's the knife'.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 38

Exactly - there are very few specialties that don't involve long and antisocial hours. I think people tend to single out dermatology as one that's mainly clinic based and has very few antisocial hours (and I met a dermatologist recently who said the only time he'd been called out in 25 years of being a consultant was for a chemical burn, that he'd turned up and said 'yes, that's a chemical burn' and let plastics do their thing). But the fact that we single it out as an exception says something about the working conditions in most other specialties.

Original post by nexttime

I think there's a perception among the general public that surgeons didn't so much choose surgery, but rather their amazing unique Skills became apparent at some point and they were Chosen as one of the few able to truly hold a scalpel.

As opposed to the reality: 'you've done an audit and presented a poster, congrats here's the knife'.
Yep. I don't want to bash surgical specialties at all, but I've been in the situation (more than once!) where a patient has suggested that surgery is something you progress to after being a physician, as though most doctors either qualify as a consultant medic and then do extra training to become a surgeon, or they 'just' stay as a medic. No idea where that idea comes from. I've heard something similar suggested about GPs as well - that they're doctors who stopped their training before they became consultants. People have some weird ideas about how specialisation works.

Reply 39