[Kromm]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Jesus, Kromm (MYLF), do Canadian FPs really get 40 minute appointment slots?

There are many variables. When I was ill with complicated cholecystitis (threatening liver, pancreas, colon, bile duct), I got 30- to 40-minute consults. On average, I get 20-30 minutes for my annual checkup, and my current doctor is considered overworked and only took me on because she was treating my wife. Before her, I was getting 10- to 15-minute slots at a university clinic. And before that, my old family doctor gave me up to an hour, and made house calls. So I'd say 20 minutes is fair and 40 minutes isn't impossible.

With due respect to our MDs here, an MD is not a PhD. The two differ significantly, in many ways. In sheer years, a PhD is typically more educated. In Canada, the MD is actually considered an undergraduate degree, awarded 3-4 years after an optional BSc, also earned in 3-4 years; the mean age of graduation is 25-26, depending on region. The PhD is a graduate degree earned after 3-4 years at the bachelor's level and 2-3 years at the master's level, and takes on average 5 years in itself; the mean age of graduation is >30, and 36 in the sciences most closely related to medicine. In sheer hours-to-skill-points terms, a PhD has 10 years on and higher skill levels than a green, unspecialized MD.

I agree re: skill levels. However, the average MD isn't a surgeon, an ER physician, or a medic in a warzone. For the sorts of doctors (or equivalent) likely to be PCs in action-adventure campaigns, I totally agree that skill 12 is far too low and you shouldn't bother asking for the job with less than skill 14.

This is not the same in Canada. Here, a GP is an accredited specialist who has followed up her four-year MD with a two- to three-year residency in a family medicine program and then passed a special examination. She is what the U.S.A. would call an FP. She is still in no way qualified to work an ER, ride in an ambulance, or do anything in an OR. A significant fraction of the training is in the psychology of the job.

Originally Posted by acrosome

And the more I think about it the more annoyed I get at the thought that someone might try to deny me my Surgery-14 after I did that five-year residency! Come and say that to my face, brother! What's a guy gotta do to get a freakin 14 around here? That was five years of 100+ hour work weeks! You're lucky I'm not asking for 16!

See above – I think that 14-16 is justified for many, even most surgeons. My answer was about MDs, who as a baseline are graduates of a four-year undergraduate program. They are as skilled at medicine as the graduates of any four-year entry-level program are at anything. Saying that they get more out of their four years than other people strikes me as hopeful. I had plenty of pre-med and med students visit my office (and attend the same parties . . .) when I was running physics courses, and they were not more impressive or more diligent students than the people majoring in physical education, sociology, chemistry, commerce, etc.; they were just other undergraduates.

Originally Posted by acrosome

So, what is something like removing a gallbladder in GURPS terms? Easy?

My surgeon claimed it was, relative to her normal work, which is breast-cancer surgery and medical research. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Kraydak

I really, really dislike the "professional skill level=12". Among the many problems it has is: what happens when the professional skill standards change?

Answer: The meaning of the skill changes at a level below the abstraction of the game system. Ignore it, or at most treat it as a -2 for unfamiliarity with new methods and equipment until current skill users catch up on their reading, whereupon they no longer have that -2 eating into the bonuses for the new stuff. It would be completely wrong to say that as standards advance, skills increase. For fixed years of study, skill levels are fixed as well. What changes are the bonuses for developments in the field and, ultimately, the TL.