(no subject)
Yesterday we had our third exam of the semester. There were 23 lectures, a ream of powerpoint slides, and a 78 page review sheet. I worked hard to get the information, but it really is a deluge and it's hard to just keep one's head above water. Studying with a group of kind and brilliant people has helped tremendously this semester and talking through things looking for keywords feels like good strategy. But before starting med school, I never thought I'd be so willing to settle for keywords. (Ash leaf spots-->tuberous sclerosis, but why?)
On the exam there was a question about the treatments for Alzheimer's and I knew for sure that there were only two FDA approved pharmacological strategies for treating Alzheimer's. Then I looked at the answers and the question was set up so that you choose which one of the the 6 strategies is NOT used. I looked at them and 4 were research techniques, with a plausible but unproven mechanism of action. The question really bothered me because the treatments we need to know are the ones that are effective not the ones that are unproven.
I would never have been angry at that kind of a question before. When I left my old job, my adviser told me to "continue asking the why questions," and I was so eager to do so. Somewhere deep down I still am, I hope. What kind of doctor is really satisfied with two treatments that barely improve outcomes for a limited time? When your known treatments aren't much good isn't it good medicine to read the literature, join a trial, test something new?
There was toast I made about this time last year, when we'd finished our first big course. "To being better doctors than multiple choice tests would make us." I hope I can still live up to that, but it's going to be a long year.
On the exam there was a question about the treatments for Alzheimer's and I knew for sure that there were only two FDA approved pharmacological strategies for treating Alzheimer's. Then I looked at the answers and the question was set up so that you choose which one of the the 6 strategies is NOT used. I looked at them and 4 were research techniques, with a plausible but unproven mechanism of action. The question really bothered me because the treatments we need to know are the ones that are effective not the ones that are unproven.
I would never have been angry at that kind of a question before. When I left my old job, my adviser told me to "continue asking the why questions," and I was so eager to do so. Somewhere deep down I still am, I hope. What kind of doctor is really satisfied with two treatments that barely improve outcomes for a limited time? When your known treatments aren't much good isn't it good medicine to read the literature, join a trial, test something new?
There was toast I made about this time last year, when we'd finished our first big course. "To being better doctors than multiple choice tests would make us." I hope I can still live up to that, but it's going to be a long year.