2 ms·
It would be totally impractical to have full time people studying every sub-sub-sub-specialty: if we saw a person with rare disease X once a year, what would th
by apsec112 14y ago
It would be totally impractical to have full time people studying every sub-sub-sub-specialty: if we saw a person with rare disease X once a year, what would the specialist in X do the rest of the time? That's why we have a large network of outside experts we can consult when very domain-specific knowledge is needed.
Also, as someone who spends a lot of time working with doctors, the current medical system does not train people to look at things in detail and connect subtle dots - it trains people to run around doing everything as quickly as they possibly can. (Ask anyone who's in residency if you don't believe me.) A significant part of our advantage is that we can spend much more time on a single patient than a standard ten-minute consultation.
- sytelus 14y agoWell, standard consultation does not cost $5000. If I have $5000 to spend, why should I use this website as opposed to directly finding another expert (with real MD degree and hand-on experience) and get their second opinion? I'm not sure of equivalent hourly rate of doctors but even at $500 per hour, I should be able to get a real specialist to study my reports in-depth and take their couple of hours of consulting time for a fraction of the cost. Again website needs to make explicit how much it would cost, who would do the work and what are their credentials. Lot of statistics such as 50% of second opinions contradicts looks very bogus. Is it from a reliable source?
- apsec112 14y agoSources on second opinions: http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/news/second_opinion06.shtml http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/news/second_opinion06.shtml http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203721704577159280778957336.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020372170457715...