HJS07
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Hi please can someone read this and tell me what’s wrong with it I know it’s not great but I don’t really know where to start with improving my essay writing skills.

“He who studies medicine without books sails an uncharted sea, but he who studies medicine without patients does not go to sea at all”
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

This statement can be inferred as one who studies medicine without much if not any academic knowledge is stepping into a world that has never been explored, whereas one who studies medicine with academic ability will not be able to even step into the world. Thus the statement can be seen as concluding that if you have got academic ability however with no experience with patients you will be unable to step into the medical world whereas if you do not have academic ability but have had experience with patients you can have a sense of what the medical field is about yet because it is described as ‘uncharted’ which can mean that no has much experience doing so it can be harder.
An argument for going into medicine without any ‘books’, which can be inferred to academic knowledge or academic knowledge of a lesser ability is harder than what it would be than having a better knowledge around medicine is that in order to diagnose and treat a patient accordingly one must have the appropriate knowledge of medicine in order to assess the symptoms of what the patient describes or is experiencing and coming up with a suitable diagnoses and treatment. Without knowledge of medicine one may misdiagnose a patient leading to further potential harm going against one of the four medical pillars which is non-beneficence, doing no harm. However, it can also be seen as just because one has a better academic knowledge or ability regarding medicine it may not mean that they will misdiagnose a patient or that they don’t have knowledge surrounding a certain area. This is because they may gain knowledge through experience with patients and through their previous experience they can then appropriately and accurately treat a patient.

An argument against this statement could be that having academic ability and knowledge and no experience with patients can lead to being successful in the medical field. For example a GP doctor with no patient experience is presented with another patient who has an ear infection describes their symptoms and so the doctor with their knowledge which is applied in this situation comes up with a diagnosis and treatment. Although it can also be seen as that this may not always be the case for example if a patient in the A&E needs an immediate blood transfusion which is life or death, the doctor with no patient experience may lack certain skills such as team-work skills, communication skills, working under pressure and time management skills. This may lead to the doctor failing to treat the patient under the time pressured conditions which leads to a fatal outcome. Whereas if a doctor with patient experience were to be presented with this situation it can be seen as they would be more likely to treat the patient more efficiently as they’ve been presented with situations like these before.

In conclusion I do not fully agree with this statement as it can be said one who is a doctor preferably would be a well rounded individual and it can be seen as in the medical world one needs both academic ability as well as patient experience.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by HJS07)
Hi please can someone read this and tell me what’s wrong with it I know it’s not great but I don’t really know where to start with improving my essay writing skills.

“He who studies medicine without books sails an uncharted sea, but he who studies medicine without patients does not go to sea at all”
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

This statement can be inferred as one who studies medicine without much if not any academic knowledge is stepping into a world that has never been explored, whereas one who studies medicine with academic ability will not be able to even step into the world. Thus the statement can be seen as concluding that if you have got academic ability however with no experience with patients you will be unable to step into the medical world whereas if you do not have academic ability but have had experience with patients you can have a sense of what the medical field is about yet because it is described as ‘uncharted’ which can mean that no has much experience doing so it can be harder.
An argument for going into medicine without any ‘books’, which can be inferred to academic knowledge or academic knowledge of a lesser ability is harder than what it would be than having a better knowledge around medicine is that in order to diagnose and treat a patient accordingly one must have the appropriate knowledge of medicine in order to assess the symptoms of what the patient describes or is experiencing and coming up with a suitable diagnoses and treatment. Without knowledge of medicine one may misdiagnose a patient leading to further potential harm going against one of the four medical pillars which is non-beneficence, doing no harm. However, it can also be seen as just because one has a better academic knowledge or ability regarding medicine it may not mean that they will misdiagnose a patient or that they don’t have knowledge surrounding a certain area. This is because they may gain knowledge through experience with patients and through their previous experience they can then appropriately and accurately treat a patient.

An argument against this statement could be that having academic ability and knowledge and no experience with patients can lead to being successful in the medical field. For example a GP doctor with no patient experience is presented with another patient who has an ear infection describes their symptoms and so the doctor with their knowledge which is applied in this situation comes up with a diagnosis and treatment. Although it can also be seen as that this may not always be the case for example if a patient in the A&E needs an immediate blood transfusion which is life or death, the doctor with no patient experience may lack certain skills such as team-work skills, communication skills, working under pressure and time management skills. This may lead to the doctor failing to treat the patient under the time pressured conditions which leads to a fatal outcome. Whereas if a doctor with patient experience were to be presented with this situation it can be seen as they would be more likely to treat the patient more efficiently as they’ve been presented with situations like these before.

In conclusion I do not fully agree with this statement as it can be said one who is a doctor preferably would be a well rounded individual and it can be seen as in the medical world one needs both academic ability as well as patient experience.
Post to the BMAT thread, that's where all the BMAT test takers are hanging out: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6864748
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you describe the quality of the digital skills you're taught at school?

Excellent (4)
8.33%
Okay (17)
35.42%
A bit lacking (14)
29.17%
Not good at all (13)
27.08%

Watched Threads

View All