[net.med] Question about choice of doctors

perelgut (05/02/83)

    Do you prefer (think you'd prefer) going to a doctor who
has  been  in  practice  for:
	a) more than 30 years
	b) 20-30 years
	c) 10-20 years
	d)  1-10 years
	e) less than a year.

    What I am getting at is whether you prefer a doctor with
lots  of  experience  who may be getting old, a doctor fresh
out of medical school who lacks experience  but  understands
most  of  the  latest advances, or some choice in the middle
ground.
    Personally I feel the middle-ground is the  worst  since
you  get a doctor with less experience and with a marginally
out-of-date background.  Since my "Significant Other"  is  a
journalist  who  wrote her Bachelor's thesis on the unneces-
sarily high rate of Caesarean sections in North  America,  I
have  come across one extremely good argument for the older,
experienced doctor.  New  graduates  are  taught  all  about
fetal-monitors  and  modern  surgical techniques and tend to
treat pregnancy as an abnormal condition akin to a  disease.
Very few of them seem to know how to handle a simple forceps
delivery.  In fact, it is not a prerequisite to graduate  as
an  OB  to know how to use forceps.  One reason is that they
may mark the baby's head and doctors want to deliver a  per-
fect   specimen.   Older  doctors  are  trained  in  forceps
delivery and tend to use it instead of surgery.  In fact, my
"S.O."  has  chosen  the  doctor  who  delivered  her as her
OB/gyn.
    Young doctors seem to be trained in treating  everything
as a disease and have a reputation for promoting surgery un-
necessarily.  I recommend that you read  (with  a  grain  of
disbelief) "Confession of a Medical Heretic".
    Reply to the above  question  (sorry  for  the  extended
length  of  the  article)  to  me  directly  and I will post
results if there is enough interest.
	    --- Stephen Perelgut ---
    {decvax!utzoo,ihnp4,uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!perelgut