Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Is there anything wrong with not wanting to be an academic doctor?

Scroll to see replies

Sorry, my OP hasn't been posted yet for some reason. I'll try again:

I am aware that despite the medicine course and subsequent career as a doctor being vocational, you do need to be academic to get through. But that isn't my question. Is it ok to want to be a doctor but not be especially interested in academic medicine?

I have good grades, I know how to study and by all accounts my academic record would indicate I'm an academic person. But it's not what I'm interested in. I want to study medicine and become a good doctor, but I don't want to do it because I want to 'change the world'. By this I mean I don't want to study medicine to 'discover the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's'. I don't want to be a doctor with the purpose of being central to ground breaking research. I just want to go out and do it. I want to put what I've learned to practice, adapt what I know to the situation, and change things for the patient(s) that I'm dealing with at the time. If I discover something 'revolutionary' along the way then that's great of course, but I mainly just want to learn the job, the lifestyle, and get on with it.

However, I then hear/read of people arguing about where one should go for medical school, that certain universities (i.e. Oxbridge) will give you the connections to 'get somewhere' in medicine. And by that it's always about research etc. It makes me feel like going into medicine with the desire of being a clinical doctor and not necessarily wanting to be a 'game changer', is not good enough. I do want to be the difference, make a difference, but not in that way.

I'd say most doctors think the same as you. It's not an issue at all.

Reply 21

nexttime

Original post by Mesosome

I am aware that despite the medicine course and subsequent career as a doctor being vocational, you do need to be academic to get through. But that isn't my question. Is it ok to want to be a doctor but not be especially interested in academic medicine?

It depends what you mean by "academic medicine". I feel that you, and the majority of answers you have received, refer to the act of performing research. Although performing research is common and useful, it is not mandatory no.

However, you also use the word 'vocational'... being a doctor, even in day to day, mundane work, is still very academic. At least, it is if you're doing it right. Whilst in other 'vocations' (and in medicine in the past) you observe your 'master', emulate them, then use your own experience to surpass them, modern medicine should be evidence based. Doctors should not be just doing what their seniors did, nor should they just be following guidelines without thought. The role of a doctor is fundamentally to look at research, and apply it to real patients. Were the methods of this research acceptable? Does your patient fit the subject demographics? Does it answer the specific question you had?

Whilst doing your own research is not compulsory, a strong familiarity with research methodology and practice very much is. At least if you want to be any good at what you do.

You could also argue that a fundamental role of a doctor is to identify areas in the day to day needs of your patients where research is lacking and do something about it. However that just really doesn't happen in the NHS so you can ignore it too, if you want.

Original post by applesforme

I don't think clinical doctors really have the time to do research as well?

The majority of doctors will perform at least some research in their career. Its likely to be more clinical than lab-based though.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Writing a law personal statement: expert advice from universities

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

Powerful questions business students forget to ask their career advisers

Why I chose a law degree and what studying law was like