3 ms·
Let me just clarify one point here: are you calling for the loosening of the requirements to become a physician or are you asking for the creation of a perhaps
by Locke1689 17y ago
Let me just clarify one point here: are you calling for the loosening of the requirements to become a physician or are you asking for the creation of a perhaps less accredited, more specialized practicing subfield? I can see the reason why that would be useful, however I can also see how that would be dangerous. Consider this example: someone has just gotten into a car accident. They come into the hospital after the EMT has checked them out with only a broken arm. However, what the EMT missed is that they have actually suffered appendiceal rupture (ruptured appendix) as well and will die of septicemia very soon if not operated on ASAP. I'm worried that a less qualified physician may miss such a diagnosis, whereas the general training should cover this case.
In that case we could make a specific rule: people who get in car accidents need to see an MD physician. However, I think there are a number of cases where a full physician may catch something that someone with less training missed. Therefore, is it really cost effective to have someone less trained on the staff if they're only utilized in very specific situations?
I'm not claiming that your idea is wrong, only that it may be a little more complex than it first appears.
Edit: Peritonitis, I should say. If they've already developed septicemia, not only will it be pretty obvious (for the most part, so will appendiceal rupture), but there's a decent chance they'll die even with the best treatment.