The very points which you have bring out in your statement would, in my opinion, ratify the need for strong language in opposition to much of what is claimed by MIS enthusiasts.
There are far more surgical residencies now than were available when I served mine more than 30 years ago. In those days, only the very best of students were granted that opportunity. Lack of formal training is no excuse for allowing some to foist upon the patient public their mediocre and often sub-standard capabilities. You wouldn't wish your airline pilot who could not gain admission to a qualified flight program to be seated in the cockpit of your airliner, having only undergone an informal "workshop" in flying the plane. And as you point out, MIS has allowed non-surgical practitioners be become, in your words, "instant surgeons," so, in contra-distinction to your statement herein, even you, who opined that the language has been too strong, would appear to tacitly admit that criticism of these practitioners represent neither misconceptions or prejustices, but the sorry reality of the situation.
The real problem is that the average patient has neither any idea nor the means by which to choose their doctor wisely. The public at large believes that state licensure assures competence, which of course it does not. In my experience, the MIS devotee is often more used car salesman than doctor, and his pitch can be very seductive to the uniformed.
I can't stress enough how important it is to evaluate ones doctor on the basis of his credentials, such as quality hospital affiliations and Board Certification, and not by his/her amicability, personality or glibness.
I think your post makes a point for the strong language that this topic has engendered rather than to speak against it. |
