Maybe My Friend Was Right

I was having an e-conversation with a lawyer friend, and somehow, we wound up talking about some of the differences between lawyers and doctors.  I did not point out that an important difference is that doctors have to get it right, but lawyers only have to win an argument.  But we did talk about the difference in how much post-college training lawyers get (three years) versus how much post-college training doctors get (10 years for me), and noting that lawyers charge vastly more than do doctors.  My friend said the amount of training was deceptive, because lawyers continue to learn after law school.  I pointed out that precisely the same is true of doctors, and of other professionals, and that's why they call it "practice."  I said that with respect to the very different number of years of learning after college, either lawyers are smarter than doctors (and can learn what they need to know in much less time), or doctors have to learn a lot more than do lawyers.  I told my friend he could choose.  He said lawyers are smarter than doctors, except for me.  I told him that was cleverly diplomatic.

A woman I know, who was herself a doctor, until she retired recently, has had a number of medical and orthopedic problems.  Her problems have been impairing, and it's taken a toll on her emotionally.  I just saw her at Thanksgiving, and she told me her PCP suggested the possibility of an antidepressant.  She wanted to know if I thought an antidepressant would help her feel better.  (She had been skeptical, and declined the offer.)  I told her no, an antidepressant would not help her feel better, and she'll feel better when she gets better, which I have reason to assume she will.

I also told her, as a matter of perspective, that it is true now, and it has always been true, that the vast majority of prescriptions for psychotropics (medications used to treat psychiatric problems, even including depression and anxiety) have been written by people who are not psychiatrists (doctors whose specialty is not psychiatry, or people, like nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, who are not doctors.)  And studies have shown that psychotropic prescribing by non-psychiatrists is comparatively inefficient and ineffective.  I've seen some horrible results of psychotropic prescribing by non-psychiatrists who couldn't even recognize the problem.  So doctors, and other people authorized to write prescriptions, are, in effect, not smart enough to know that they don't know what they're doing, or how to do what they intended to do, at least if they're not psychiatrists, but they're trying to treat psychiatric problems.  I am proud, and perhaps a bit relieved, to note that psychiatrists very, very rarely attempt to treat conditions they were not trained to treat.  If that means that psychiatrists are (it's complicated, but we now have to say used to be) smarter than non-psychiatrists, or non-doctors, then so be it.

Lawyers, on the other hand, tend to settle into specialties, and they tend not to try to practice in areas of the law that are different from the special areas in which they honed their skills, and learned the rules and relevant laws and landmark cases.  Or at the very least, they know there are relevant laws and landmark cases, and they find out what they are, if they're stepping into an area which is not typical for them.

So, maybe my friend was right.  Maybe lawyers really are smarter, or less foolish, or less cocky, than doctors.  Do I get to cling to "some" lawyers, and "some" doctors?  There are some pretty incompetent examples of the former, and some excellent examples of the latter, too.