By Katrina Firlik.
Neurosurgeons are quirky people. I’ve yet to meet one who’s “normal”; mind you, my observation-count of this rare species is still only three, so perhaps my sample-size is just too small. In her book ‘Another Day in the Frontal Lobe’ Katrina Firlik describes the habitat, behaviours, and temperament of the neurosurgeon. Here are some of the findings (corroborated with my personal experience):
- Quirk 1: Neurosurgeons are your superior. It doesn’t matter who you are, or what you do, brain surgery tops everything. I suppose that’s the attitude that naturally comes after 11 years of speciality training in an isolated culture. Firlik notes the stereotype, confirms its accuracy, and then exemplifies it with an out-right haughty tone throughout her book.
- Quirk 2: Neurosurgeons do only a few things very well. You’d think that the neurosurgeon would be the ultimate expert on function of that mysterious organ, the brain. They’re not. In fact, neurosurgeons handle only a small subset of brain disease. This includes trauma, tumours, and seizures. Comprehensive brain/mind function is left to be studied by the psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists, with each one contributing a unique piece. In fact, most neurosurgeons spend most of their time operating on the spine (that’s where the most money is to be made).
- Quirk 3: Neurosurgeons are mechanics. Brain surgery is not, well, brain surgery! If there’s too much fluid in the brain causing a build-up of pressure, you drain some to restore normal pressure. If there’s a tumour compressing on brain structures, you remove it to decompress the brain. Obviously I’m vastly simplifying, but most neurosurgical work is founded upon basic mechanical principles.
- Quirk 4: Neurosurgeons are emotionally tough. This is a necessary attribute. Chances are, that once you’re willing to let someone cut into your brain, things are looking pretty bad. The outcomes of neurosurgical patients are usually not happy stories.
You may accuse me of speciality profiling; of drawing on superficial stereotypes. I protest that, in medicine, the stereotypes are usually objectively true. Each speciality has a unique personality of doctor associated with it. And it makes sense. When you train for many years with a small, isolated, community day-in, and day-out, you tend to form an identifiable culture. When medical students choose their future directions, a large factor is often the culture with whom they get-along the best.
