nevajism Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Very much agree with Bored train driver and MarkG on this- one of the problems with this country is the closed shop medical profession--- it gives medics an (unjustified) superiority complex- I work in medical research (biophysics actually) - im not a medic , have a phd in engineering -- can someone explain to me why there are two academic pay scales-- one for everyone ---with the exception of medics who have their own special 'clinical scale' considerably higher- so we can have the situation of someone working at one bench doing very similar work to somone at the next getting paid twice a much, my personal experience is that medics dont make good researchers either (good at wangleing their way onto papers for doing sod all- but thats a different matter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 can someone explain to me why there are two academic pay scales-- one for everyone ---with the exception of medics who have their own special 'clinical scale' considerably higher- Because they are greedy b@stards with low morals. They develop an elite professional structure and status through monopoly...convince the whole of society that they are the only thing between them and death. Then they restrict entrance to the profession to develop a perceived shortage....then they hold the government to ransom for ever increasing pay. simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smell the Fear Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Because they are greedy b@stards with low morals. They develop an elite professional structure and status through monopoly...convince the whole of society that they are the only thing between them and death. Then they restrict entrance to the profession to develop a perceived shortage....then they hold the government to ransom for ever increasing pay. simple Or maybe all the others are a bunch of suckers who don't know how to defend themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevajism Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The thing that bugs me is that most medics dont realise that is why they are paid so well and believe it is because they are elite in some way (its drummed into them at medical school) - at least tube drivers know they are holding the goverment to ransom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smell the Fear Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The thing that bugs me is that most medics dont realise that is why they are paid so well and believe it is because they are elite in some way (its drummed into them at medical school) - at least tube drivers know they are holding the goverment to ransom. And there's me thinking that they thought they deserve a decent standard of living because they work longer than average hours, undertake more training than any other profession, and make decisions that affect the lives of many people on a daily basis. All the while with the threat of being sued by the grasping, ungrateful public. As an obstetrician once said, "when I deliver a baby, I am guaranteed to receive one of two things. A bottle of whiskey, or a letter from a solicitor". Most medics believe they are paid well because they work hard, have sacrificed a lot and are committed to their jobs. If that is what you want to break, you will pay dearly for it when you get a third world service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamUK Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And there's me thinking that they thought they deserve a decent standard of living because they work longer than average hours, undertake more training than any other profession, and make decisions that affect the lives of many people on a daily basis. All the while with the threat of being sued by the grasping, ungrateful public. Eh? My brother's and his wife are GPs and they get 7 weeks off a year, he doesn't work Wednesday afternoons and although he has to do call outs, all the local practices got together to enlarge the pool of GPs so it's not actually that often (and he get's paid 70 quid an hour when he does)... and he gets 95 grand a year basic. Now don't get me wrong, he worked hard to get where he and good luck to him. But he's under no impression that's he's not onto a good deal and that his wage is due to a chroinc shortage of GPs. This whole idea that if a doctor f**ks up, it could kill someone it somehow justifies a barrowful of tenners ia nonesense. By that rationale a bus driver could kill 50 people in one go. Or a nuclear plant operator could wipe a million off the planet if it all went FUBAR. The latter should be paid more than Bill Gates. Just my 2p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevajism Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Undertake more training is not correct- this is another piece of medical propaganda- the reason why they claim they train for more years is because they include their clinical (professional) training while negleticing everyone elses- i did a 4 year engineering degree but it took another 4 years of monitored professional development to become chartered - so that makes 8 years + 4 years (actually more) for a phd that makes 12 years- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smell the Fear Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Undertake more training is not correct- this is another piece of medical propaganda- the reason why they claim they train for more years is because they include their clinical (professional) training while negleticing everyone elses- i did a 4 year engineering degree but it took another 4 years of monitored professional development to become chartered - so that makes 8 years + 4 years (actually more) for a phd that makes 12 years- You are the exception, not the rule. I take it you agree with all the points? It must be interesting for any medics out there to read this - the great british public - lovely aren't they? Are you aware that in the not so distant past many doctors worked 100 hr weeks for you ingrates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamUK Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Are you aware that in the not so distant past many doctors worked 100 hr weeks for you ingrates? A number of the aforesaid hours we very much spent asleep... though on-call. My bro looked chuffin terrible by the time he finished shift as even if you got sleep, it was never good sleep and you could guarantee you would get woken after 2 hours. I think the move to shorter working hours benefits both junior doctors and patients overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevajism Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Just seems strange to me that a GP doing a routine job dolling out antibiotics and antidepresenents gets paid 90K---more that 3 times as much as many people working in the cutting edge of medical research- developing drugs and pushing the boundaries towards a better understaning of diseases (many doing long hours) I havnt been to the GP for years (probably 10+) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamUK Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Just seems strange to me that a GP doing a routine job dolling out antibiotics and antidepresenents gets paid 90K---more that 3 times as much as many people working in the cutting edge of medical research- developing drugs and pushing the boundaries towards a better understaning of diseases (many doing long hours) I havnt been to the GP for years (probably 10+) Or someone who sit's in front of a computer trading other people's money gets a million bonus? A mate of mine has a PhD in physics and is working on research that is looking into computer aided analysis of Xrays to detect the early onset of breast cancer.. how much does he get paid? £25k. Mind-bending if you think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smell the Fear Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Just seems strange to me that a GP doing a routine job dolling out antibiotics and antidepresenents gets paid 90K---more that 3 times as much as many people working in the cutting edge of medical research- developing drugs and pushing the boundaries towards a better understaning of diseases (many doing long hours) I havnt been to the GP for years (probably 10+) A GP is at the pinnacle of their career, and effectively running their own business. I don't think £30k is the pinnacle of a research scientists career, certainly not if they are any good. A junior doctor will earn £30k a year, same as your research bod. But he will be doing exams whilst working, and probably working longer hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevajism Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Thats complete tosh but i cant be bothered arguing any more- ive got some work to finish A GP is at the pinnacle of their career, and effectively running their own business. I don't think £30k is the pinnacle of a research scientists career, certainly not if they are any good. A junior doctor will earn £30k a year, same as your research bod. But he will be doing exams whilst working, and probably working longer hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The "feel" of the 'site then? Medicine, an occupation recommended as future safe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Eh? Multiple applications of viral vectors, uncontrolled differentiation of pluripotent cell lines from autologous transplantation and god know's what respectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitingpatiently Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 What is the right kind of work for you? Sustainable work: Workthat you are passionate about. Have a part-time job to bring money in and develope your passion. Build a business around it. Let it grow organically. Look up the principles of Sustainable Development for ideas. Don't focus on jobs that offer money as the main incentive. You will be miserable. Think co-operative, creative, networks and systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) The "feel" of the 'site then? Medicine, an occupation recommended as future safe? Yes, it's relatively future safe - but of academic interest to anyone older than 19. The main 'feel' seems to be from 'Smell the fear' who is presumably hoping that his or her doctor sycophancy will win a year's free BUPA subscription. Edited February 9, 2006 by BoredTrainBuilder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smell the Fear Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Yes, it's realtively future safev - but of academic interest to anyone older than 19. The main 'feel' seems to be from 'Smell the fear' who is presumably hoping that his or her doctor sycophancy will win a year's free BUPA subscription. Or maybe I'm a med student! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Or maybe I'm a med student! Count me in with StF. I have too many medic friends who have had their vocation beaten / incentivised out of them to criticise the profession too broadly. Although GPs clearly get paid too much (median salary >100K). Or perhaps I've seen too many whinging mouth breathers receive extremely sophisticated and expensive therapy which saved their lives and, in the case of radiotherapy, exposed the doctor to risks, juxtaposed with seeing the media attention received by the 0.0001% of those patients gleefully conduct an ignorant and greedy witch hunt "so that it never happens again" (i.e. give me some cash). "Teenager has successful life saving surgery" is never a headline but happens thousands of times each week. If those people ever in their lives contributed a scrap of effort to aid their fellow man or contributed a fraction of the cost of their treatment, then perhaps they would have the right to the moral high ground to which they clearly think they are entitled. Of topic, but we are falling for the "VI"s in the media who are running scare stories by turning extremely rare medical issues into news stories. No where else on the planet do you see this. No where. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Multiple applications of viral vectors, uncontrolled differentiation of pluripotent cell lines from autologous transplantation and god know's what respectively. Your line in the sand of technological progress across all fields was drawn when? Or is your concern just in Medicine? That is a serious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Your line in the sand of technological progress across all fields was drawn when? Or is your concern just in Medicine? That is a serious question. Your drawing a very long bow on my very specific comments to very specific technologies. There's only one gene therapy product on the market, and that for a very discrete disease in a very discrete organ, following a serious of specacular failures due to lack of efficacy (or safety...). There's only one real stem cell product candidate in "proper" clinical trials (autologous transfers don't count) and as for nanotech applications to medicine... Can I vote myself for most off-topic response of the month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Your drawing a very long bow on my very specific comments to very specific technologies. There's only one gene therapy product on the market, and that for a very discrete disease in a very discrete organ, following a serious of specacular failures due to lack of efficacy (or safety...). There's only one real stem cell product candidate in "proper" clinical trials (autologous transfers don't count) and as for nanotech applications to medicine... Can I vote myself for most off-topic response of the month? Well the thread has rather gone off point so unless a Mod gets a bit huffy who cares. It's just I am really interested in the way technologies are mooted, researched, developed, tested and the risks evaluated and then how in the case of those in the early stages of application acceptance is promulgated. In my view it is too easy to dismiss things at an early stage. It is, I suppose, trite to say many advances have positive and negative effects but that does seem to be true. The trouble is that it might only be in retrospect that a truly valid position on anything can be made. Then again progress is not linear and tangents of greater use than the original might appear. I'm not even considering any ethical concerns in this partly because I see ethics as fluid and very dependant on time and place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.