4 ms·

Probably from the same reason you cannot get statistics about your surgeon before surgery(only recently it's been possible in the u.k.[1]): doctors have huge po

by hershel 13y ago

Probably from the same reason you cannot get statistics about your surgeon before surgery(only recently it's been possible in the u.k.[1]): doctors have huge political power , and they are using it to their advantage. Another reason , more legitimate is that surgery is a risky business by nature, and you have to give some protection to doctors who are taking the risks. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9935856/Heart-surgery-patients-given-online-access-to-their-doctors-performance-data.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9935856/Heart-s...

ds9 13y ago
Exactly (on both points). I can't really cite anything for my remarks, as they are based on vaguely remembered news articles over many years, but my impression is that the medical profession - in the US at least - has resolutely opposed any reform that would give the public access to information on the performance of individual doctors, hospitals, clinics or other elements of the healthcare system. The most prominent examples have had to do with histories of complaints and lawsuits. The argument for this anti-transparency stance - and for disallowing patients to have their choice of surgeons - has been that they all have to learn by practice, and if patients were allowed to choose they would largely reject the junior staff, and the latter would never get any practice. There is also a culture of solidarity amongst doctors, where an incompetent may get reassigned eventually, but won't be "outed" to the public.
kazagistar 13y ago
Plus, if everyone always wants only the best, then where do surgeons get practice to become the best?
- arjie 13y ago
  In America, from the people who cannot pay for the best.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Not sure if you meant that to be a criticism, but... exactly. I look at it as a good thing since the alternative to letting quality seek compensation advantages is to accept a general malaise of mediocrity like we have in public education.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    In America, people who cannot afford the latest $1.99 app created by some startup ending in -ly or .io are getting surgical care provided by some of the best surgeons in the nation. This is because the people who cannot pay end up at their local hospital, which for many people (in, e.g., Baltimore, Boston, New York, etc.) ends up being the nation's best hospitals, where they are treated by some of the nation's best surgeons supervising the best surgeons-in-training.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  In quite many cases I'd prefer a good doctor right now rather than trying to buy my way in some far away spot in best doctor's schedule. And practice is supposed to be covered by med school and supervised residency, isn't it? The question mainly isn't about inexperienced surgeons, but about experienced surgeons who simply are poor at the actual surgical technique, and possibly won't ever get much better. And choosing who gets which doctor based on, say, patient paying ability is actually better than the current semi-random choice - because it creates motivation for the worst surgeons to, well, try something else - if they're smart doctors, then they can be useful without cutting people up.

by hershel 13y ago

ds9 13y ago

Exactly (on both points). I can't really cite anything for my remarks, as they are based on vaguely remembered news articles over many years, but my impression is that the medical profession - in the US at least - has resolutely opposed any reform that would give the public access to information on the performance of individual doctors, hospitals, clinics or other elements of the healthcare system. The most prominent examples have had to do with histories of complaints and lawsuits. The argument for this anti-transparency stance - and for disallowing patients to have their choice of surgeons - has been that they all have to learn by practice, and if patients were allowed to choose they would largely reject the junior staff, and the latter would never get any practice. There is also a culture of solidarity amongst doctors, where an incompetent may get reassigned eventually, but won't be "outed" to the public.

kazagistar 13y ago

Plus, if everyone always wants only the best, then where do surgeons get practice to become the best?

arjie 13y ago
In America, from the people who cannot pay for the best.
- crusso 13y ago
  Not sure if you meant that to be a criticism, but... exactly. I look at it as a good thing since the alternative to letting quality seek compensation advantages is to accept a general malaise of mediocrity like we have in public education.
- carbocation 13y ago
  In America, people who cannot afford the latest $1.99 app created by some startup ending in -ly or .io are getting surgical care provided by some of the best surgeons in the nation. This is because the people who cannot pay end up at their local hospital, which for many people (in, e.g., Baltimore, Boston, New York, etc.) ends up being the nation's best hospitals, where they are treated by some of the nation's best surgeons supervising the best surgeons-in-training.
PeterisP 13y ago
In quite many cases I'd prefer a good doctor right now rather than trying to buy my way in some far away spot in best doctor's schedule. And practice is supposed to be covered by med school and supervised residency, isn't it? The question mainly isn't about inexperienced surgeons, but about experienced surgeons who simply are poor at the actual surgical technique, and possibly won't ever get much better. And choosing who gets which doctor based on, say, patient paying ability is actually better than the current semi-random choice - because it creates motivation for the worst surgeons to, well, try something else - if they're smart doctors, then they can be useful without cutting people up.