:: And what do I think? ::

Human nature: Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions). This I AGREE with WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I totally hate people who complain that they can’t do this and can’t do that, this isn’t possible and that isn’t either because they are….
Poor, not well-educated, weak, tired, too busy, not given the opportunity, their superiors don’t like them, don’t know how to bootlick, don’t know how to speak well, aren’t extroverts… and all kinds of crap excuses. Actually I also get the himbygibbies (refer to the movie ‘Madagascar’) when I hear people say. ‘I passed my exams, thank Lord’, ‘I’ve been cured from the addiction to computer games. Thank God for that.’ Personally, I think it’s ok to ‘thank Lord/God/Allah’ (whichever faith you belong to) for matters concerning life and death rather than for really frivolous issues as mentioned above.

Ethics: objectivism rejects any form of altruism – the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
I used to believe that the greatest love is to sacrifice something precious to myself. I used to want to grow up into a person who’d do everything for the people around me… and that was one of the reasons why I chose medicine. I thought that if I could bring happiness to others, I would be happy. But now, I don’t really think I could be happy if I only lived for others and not for myself.
Then again, the issue of morality, who was the one who talked about morality initially? Confucius? I have to question the essence of morality, who determines what’s good and what’s bad and why should we live by the rules? (incidentally, this is the title of a book by Dr Michael Shermer – The science of good and evil: why people cheat, gossip, share, care and follow the golden rule) that I hope to read soon) I don’t see why I should toe the line if there’s simply no good reason for me to. If something’s not rational, why should be accept it???
A couple of days back, while doing the surveys for medicine elective at the NCC, I met a patient who precisely thought that ‘youngsters of these days are selfish, it’s always me, me, me first. The people who put others before them are gone like the dinosaurs.’ That was the response when I told him why I’d wanted to do medicine.
I’d said: I want to do medicine because it’s my interest, and because through it I can bring some comfort and improve the quality of life of the patients. My emphasis is not on saving the world because I don’t think it’s possible. And I feel that having a passion for medicine will drive me to do what I can for the patients.
AND HIS REPLY IMPLIED THAT I WAS ONE OF THOSE SELFISH YOUNGSTERS. I don’t deny that, as I’d said before, if I were to say: I’m doing medicine because I want to ‘save the world’ (I’m quoting him here), I’d be asking my patients for moral blank cheques, which is such a hypocritical thing to do. I’m not going to do something that will make me feel ‘cheap’ at the end of the day.
His view is extremely unrealistic. In this world everything I feel should be based on mutual exchange, even the healthcare system. Even more so since patients are beginning to treat doctors as service personnel. They demand for good service, we charge them for it. Isn’t it a fair exchange? Afterall, haven’t we paid so much to get a medical education? (so much for the Hippocratic oath)

MY MOTTO IS: Do what you like best and do it well.

Regarding this ‘mixed economy’ notion, (correct me if I’m wrong), doesn’t it sound like Singapore’s system? Not having studied economics, I have absolutely no idea if Rand’s right, or rather, if her view is feasible, if it’s too idealistic? If we were to have purely capitalism, wouldn’t that widen the gap between the rich and the poor? Yet again, would that matter? It might matter if a country’s taken as a whole, the GDPs compared and so on… but if I put it in the view of Objectivism, this means nothing. Who cares whether a country’s rich or poor? Haha… it sounds selfish doesn’t it? Hehe, but then again, what’s the point of a selfless world?

(to be continued…)

anyway, i think this grp of drs are a really special lot. they're so realistically optimistic. not giving pts false hope, and yet being very encouraging all the same. they urge the pts to accept their illness, they acknowledge that it'll be a really tough time for the pts (esp when they're undergoing certain treatments). a cancer is seen as a common-place cold, or cough. these grp at the NCC are really able to empathise, rather than sympathise or offer pity. (wait, they mean the same don't they?)

as a long-term pt myself, i appreciate drs who can empathise with me (and well, so far none have really managed to) but then it's not really impt to me to get empathy, i just don't like people giving me sympathy. i ESPECIALLY hate pple who say, 'if i were in your shoes, i would blah, blah, blah.' my not-too-secret desire is to tell them, 'get out of my shoes' and 'try talking to me after you have the same illness'. really, i don't think pts (esp those with chronic illnesses) need sympathy, they just need us to treat them like normal people.

so anyway, haha... this poor dr was saying he got a pay cut when he rose fr MO to reg. LOLZ.... seems like these days there are incentives for us to stay as MOs hor...

apparently the pay rise from SR to AC is almost nothing. it's just a 'rise' from senior to associate. bah. one very optimistic dr T maintains that though the actual pay doesn't really change, the allowance increases. thereupon, he settles back into his chair and has a satisfied goofy sheepish smile on his face.

***

The D round is extremely different from the M&M of the surgeons. over at M&M, we watch these seemingly omnipotent pluripotent pple argue over who'd 'killed' the pt, arrows fly all over the lecture hall and the amoeba (med students), plankton (HOs) and small fish (MOs) fly for cover. D round is concerned over finding out what had killed the patient... was it the cancer or not? that's the crucial question. often they discuss about their limited capability of helping a pt. a prime example is that beds in the ICU are normally not given to cancer pts, esp if they're in the advanced stages... unethical or humane?

***

EW is supposed to ewing a bit and blog something abt the giggly chairs too... tune in to her blog!

pssst: you'd better blog something...

***