But why does it have to be this way? Why not just rank medical personnel, or legal personnel, in a single continuum from practical nurse through rockstar brain surgeon. (Is that a title?). There would still be the understanding that some people will never climb beyond a certain point, while others can jump straight to a higher rung.
The only reason I can think of is that the establishment believes that mastery in nursing does not imply even a beginner’s level competency in doctoring? (similar to how mastering ecology doesn’t give one even beginners competence in engineering?)
It only makes sense to have a clear separation when the skill sets and aptitudes required are considered sufficiently distinct. It’s possible that this is asymmetrical (For example, I’m guessing it would be easier for a professional mathematician to become an professional actuary than the reverse)
t mastery in nursing does not imply even a beginner’s level competency in doctoring
There is no single “master nurse” title. Nurses take specializations (just like MDs can become e.g. ophthalmologists), or smaller courses in specific proficiencies (eg to administer specific treatments). Maybe a nurse that took every course in existence would know as much as an MD (though I expect there would be bits missing here and there, particularly theoretical biochemical knowledge), but a regular nurse certainly doesn’t.
I would guess that most MD forget most of their theoretical biochemical knowledge 10 years after finishing their studies.
That doesn’t mean such knowledge shouldn’t be required from MDs, including transitioning nurses. Or if it does, then MDs shouldn’t have to learn it in the first place.
That doesn’t mean such knowledge shouldn’t be required from MDs, including transitioning nurses. Or if it does, then MDs shouldn’t have to learn it in the first place.
If most of them are allowed to work without that knowledge it defacto isn’t required for working as a doctor.
The only reason I can think of is that the establishment believes that mastery in nursing does not imply even a beginner’s level competency in doctoring? (similar to how mastering ecology doesn’t give one even beginners competence in engineering?)
It only makes sense to have a clear separation when the skill sets and aptitudes required are considered sufficiently distinct. It’s possible that this is asymmetrical (For example, I’m guessing it would be easier for a professional mathematician to become an professional actuary than the reverse)
There is no single “master nurse” title. Nurses take specializations (just like MDs can become e.g. ophthalmologists), or smaller courses in specific proficiencies (eg to administer specific treatments). Maybe a nurse that took every course in existence would know as much as an MD (though I expect there would be bits missing here and there, particularly theoretical biochemical knowledge), but a regular nurse certainly doesn’t.
Titles don’t have something directly to do with competency.
I would guess that most MD forget most of their theoretical biochemical knowledge 10 years after finishing their studies.
That doesn’t mean such knowledge shouldn’t be required from MDs, including transitioning nurses. Or if it does, then MDs shouldn’t have to learn it in the first place.
If most of them are allowed to work without that knowledge it defacto isn’t required for working as a doctor.