3 ms·
No offense, but your comment sounds like a glossy press release or a sappy existential introduction to a documentary. It contains little to no concrete informa
by abalashov 16y ago
No offense, but your comment sounds like a glossy press release or a sappy existential introduction to a documentary. It contains little to no concrete information or positive claims, of the empirical or speculative variety. It has a communicative magnitude of nearly zero to someone reading the comments because they are interested in substantive answers to the OP's question.
For that reason, I downvoted.
- alphaoverlord 16y agoThe substantive arguments I am trying to make are: 1. Despite diminishing returns, medicine/health is a social/individual priority and significant resources are dedicated to this field. 2. Health is a core necessity similar to food and shelter - I find it difficult to imagine a future of substantially decreased health resources. 3. Current aims are to improve efficiency, and slow the growth of healthcare as a proportion of GDP, but it would be difficult to actually decrease its proportion of GDP, particularly if expectations for standard of living and health continue to increase. 4. Biological science is really interesting and medicine allows you to help others. 5. You get to see some really cool things that most people can't see. 6. The above reasons are things that won't be changing in the foreseeable future. For any career, there are intangible and unquantifiable reasons and benefits. I am not, and not seeking to, make a completely objective, metric based argument for medicine. To be successful, I think you need to have a passion for your career, and I am simply trying to identify the aspects of medicine that one can find passion for. For that matter, if the decision to choose medicine is purely quantitative and pragmatic, I would advise you against medicine. We don't need physicians like that.