You must log in or register to comment.

MpVpRb t1_j94ubgg wrote

The only thing that's "future proof" is a trained mind. Develop the skills to teach yourself and never stop learning


knockatize t1_j94wzjp wrote

Gerontology. Aging boomers mean no shortage of clients.


SoylentRox t1_j97jdl4 wrote

Yes but gerontologists now do not add any value. This would actually be a good case where AI will take over completely because AGI gerontologists might actually be able to treat aging.


DannyLovesDerby3 t1_j9954uz wrote

If they can treat the oldies using robotics why couldn't they use it to treat the median age of the population?


SoylentRox t1_j995j1k wrote

Yes, obviously they would. Anything but "peak human" is illness if you knew what you were doing as a medical provider, and had the tools required to manipulate their body. (mostly their active genome in each cell)

Even "peak human" isn't really good enough, you have just 1 heart and blood vessels can burst from bad luck. So really good future doctors would fix this.


jeseaj t1_j94mfov wrote

Anything involving forming a human connection with the patient will be indefinitely indispensable. Anything reliant on technology will change faster and less predictably.


jazzageguy t1_j9czhlv wrote

Indispensable morally and ethically, I agree. But indispensable pragmatically, systemically, in practice? Seems to me that human connection is being dispensed with at an impressive rate in the modern medical matrix, and much of it is already gone.


Seattle_gldr_rdr t1_j94ljhi wrote

In America, unfortunately there is every reason to believe that treating gunshot wounds will remain a high-demand specialty.


cmcewen t1_j955luf wrote

I’m a surgeon.

Surgical specialities aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. It’s too complex and nuanced. There are certain subspecialties that could Have issues in the future, like bariatrics. I expect medication to eventually take that over. Or maybe specialities that are only cancer, medications may ultimately be able to treat all cancer but we are really far from that. Cardiac surgery is moving more and more to minimally invasive cardiology interventions.

Of course it’s difficult to predict the future of medicine.

I say surgical over medical because if AI is gonna take over something first, it’ll be medical decision making. Taking over physical actions of a surgeon is much more difficult. Before y’all come at me, I’m not saying it’s more difficult to be a surgeon, I’m saying the computer has to take on the ability to visualize (we often do stuff blindly just by feel) and make precise movements that are required in surgery which are not in the more decision making medical specialities.

There is no concern of mine at all of mid-levels creeping into taking over surgical specialities. It’s far too difficult. Our current problem is that surgeons aren’t being adequately trained even after 5 years of residency


scipio0421 t1_j95e3vs wrote

I was going to suggest neurosurgery. It seems like one of those fields you'll always want a human in the mix.


cmcewen t1_j95g12z wrote

I guess I don’t see any inherent difference between neuro or any other surgical specialty. In fact if machines were gonna take over something, it would be procedures on very fixed structures like the spine or brain. In comparison to bowel, let’s say. Could a robot which knows exactly the coordinates in your brain to remove a tumor because it can read the CT scan do a better job than a human can? Maybe I don’t know,

Could a computer read an MRI and more accurately place screws into the spine? I don’t know.

What’ll happen probably is a surgeon will virtually always be there, and a computer will assist on certain components, I would guess.


Laylasita t1_j95utf1 wrote

Thank you for showing me how AI is up and coming for the medical industry.


jazzageguy t1_j9d0god wrote

Aren't surgeons lately using robotic tools in the course of their work? Not to replace them, obviously, but as tools esp in, e.g., laparoscopic procedures? Is there a logical progression whereby robots do more functions, and is there some stopping point that prevents them from becoming autonomous?


cmcewen t1_j9dacjg wrote

I do robotic surgery.

As it stands, the robot does not make any decisions or do anything at all. It purely does the movement we do with our hands. Sort of like a controller to a video game. That’s all it is.

So for it to make decisions is a massive step. But who knows! Maybe some day!


jazzageguy t1_j9dbqop wrote

Well yeah, that's why I said "tools" currently. But is there no slippery slope apparent, whereby it assumes more and more functions, e.g., opening, closing, handing you instruments, etc?

Everything you do is predicated on a base of knowledge and experience, right? Is it inconceivable that some and eventually all of that knowledge and experience could reside in an AI database, with the obvious advantages of being continuously updated, and available to practitioners outside the developed-world mainstream of medical information?

With both lower- and higher-level functions increasingly automated.... well, the logical conclusion suggests itself.


cmcewen t1_j9dcg74 wrote

If I know one thing it would be to never assume we know what is possible in the future.

But I can safely say that AI and robotics is not anywhere close to autonomous surgery right now. But who knows in 30 years where things will be.


jazzageguy t1_j9dcwog wrote

I hope it's not rude to say this to a surgeon, but in 30 years I very much hope for surgery to be rare, and for most diseases to be prevented and/or treated by genetic manipulation. Future generations will look at surgery as we look at bloodletting.


jazzageguy t1_j9dde7m wrote

By "diseases" I include those of aging, and aging itself. I don't see why cell death should be the norm after we figure out how to keep cells healthy. I think the present human lifespan is a historical accident, limited because in the resource-limited past we had to make room for new generations, and the idea of a finite lifespan has, so to say, outlived its usefulness.


cmcewen t1_j9dft2y wrote

No offense taken. I spend half my day talking people out of surgery

I suspect There will always be surgery. Some problems are simply a mechanical problem that can’t be fixed any other way. How can a hernia be fixed without surgery? It’s a structural issue. How can dead bowel be fixed without removing it?

Surgery will always be a component, but you’re right that it’ll always be changing. And we already do much less surgery on people than we used to and we use minimally invasive techniques.


jazzageguy t1_j9dgina wrote

I didn't say NO surgery. Do we really do less than before? I hadn't known that.


ledow t1_j95m539 wrote

America's one of the few places in the world where people would ask this question intending to "prosper" from their medical skills.

I want a doctor who wants to help people, not make a profit.


pmaurant t1_j95wkmz wrote

Ugh!!! This same attitude is why teachers get paid dirt. “They are doing it for the kids and passion for the job.”


kevdogger t1_j95zlh6 wrote

Hospital administration and insurance companies love this attitude. Make all those save the world doctors do all the work and we'll reap the profits while cutting their reimbursement at same time. I mean they are only in it to help people


ledow t1_j961yli wrote

Which is why the solution is to FUCK THOSE ORGANISATIONS OFF out of healthcare.

There should NOT be profit in healthcare. In fact there should be "loss" on a spreadsheet. Huge losses. Because the gain is not spreadsheetable, but from a generation of healthy people who can all "afford" to go to a doctor.


kevdogger t1_j9633jy wrote

Huge losses in Healthcare?? So yeah Im sure that particular area will be ripe with innovation in the future.


ledow t1_j963iln wrote

Are you confusing healthcare provision and R&D?

I think you need to look outside the US, where insulin isn't thousands of dollars, generics are widespread, and most medical innovation occurs while also GIVING IT AWAY to the populous.


kevdogger t1_j96424e wrote

You can't run Healthcare at a huge loss..HUGE..and expect a viable future. Sure point to insulin that's been around a long time and generics that represent old drugs...however where are new meds and treatments that haven't even made it to market yet? Even modern day equipment..pacemakers, joint replacements, stents, robots..they all cost money.


ledow t1_j96rp2g wrote

Sure you can.

You run it as a service, not as a for-profit industry.

Like the majority of the developed world.

You should not be PROFITING from sickness. Break-even at best. And that's far too fine a balancing act. You SPEND MONEY on healthcare to get more productivity out of your populous... it's literally a loss-leader. Like education, the other example.

Education is a 100% loss industry. You shouldn't be charging kids to go to school, and you spend all the money you do have on their education, and combat wastefulness.

Welcome to "What life is like outside of shitty 'everything's about money' America".


kevdogger t1_j983rk2 wrote

Healthcare can't be a lost liter. Are you aware what percent of gdp in America Healthcare takes? It needs to break even at a minimum. Education payed for by either federal government..or mostly property taxes for grades k-12. What taxes would you like to raise to offset Healthcare losses? Nothing unfortunately is free


ledow t1_j9b2f94 wrote


More than just about every other developed country on the planet, including all of those with nationalised healthcare, even when adjusted for GDP, population, etc.

That's PRECISELY my point. You're spending shit on insurers because you want the insurers to profit, and if you just spent LESS but on nationalised healthcare, you'd do better and nobody would be profiting from sick people.

Your healthcare is among the most expensive in the world not because it's the best (far from it), but because you're the only first-world nation not to have nationalised healthcare and the only one to let health insurance dictate how it works, to their profit.


jazzageguy t1_j9dcg2e wrote

Here's something that's free: Single payer health care and a rational system like the whole rest of the world has would save America approximately half of the money it now spends on its stupid, wasteful, ineffective health care system. Free money in the trillions!


kevdogger t1_j9dd0qq wrote

Jeez I hate assumptions like this without studies or some specific economic analysis even if referenced. Obama care was supposed to save a lot of money and if you were alive around the time the bill was being debated the cbo had an extremely hard time calculating cost of the bill since they couldn't model a lot of assumptions. Estimates varied wildly and as expected when looking at the costs retrospectively the original estimates were not close to the actual costs of implementation. When the word trillions is thrown around my eyes start to glass over and we go again.


jazzageguy t1_j9deqv0 wrote

What do you mean "even if referenced?"

"Without studies or economic analysis?" My God, what rock can you be living under, to be unfamiliar with all the published studies and analysis of this? There are literally hundreds. ALL saying the same thing. Consult Dr Google and take a look.

Or, just look at the health care systems of EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. They have all done what I said. They all spend less than half the money per capita of America. Many if not most have better outcomes by every measure, including longer lifespans and less chronic disease.


kevdogger t1_j9dg1x5 wrote

Thanks just proved my point.


jazzageguy t1_j9dga25 wrote

No, I just disproved your points.


kevdogger t1_j9dn4xc wrote

Telling someone to Google sir are a true warrior..and clearly the irony was lost on you..yet again proving my original point


jazzageguy t1_j9slqw2 wrote

Inasmuch as your original point was that you're utterly ignorant and clueless, and determined to remain that way, I'm happy to have helped you prove your point. But really the credit belongs to you.

Seriously, what are you saying? That I should have put LINKS in my reply to spoon feed you? Would you have read the material I linked? Of course not.


jazzageguy t1_j9di8sq wrote

If your point was that you're completely ignorant of the issue, you already made it.


jazzageguy t1_j9dj94h wrote

The ACA was never intended to "save a lot of money" but to get health care to a lot of people. It worked and continues to work. Unfortunately, Republicans demanded that it "pay for itself," unlike any other govt undertaking, and thus it had to include a tax on higher income people, which inspired hysterical and deafening opposition, and probably required some "cooking of the books" because stupid Republican demands like "balancing the budget" and "paying for itself" (that they only require of Democratic projects) are impossible to achieve. (Did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars pay for themselves? Hardly!)

Trillion is just a number. It exists whether you like it or not.


Comfortable_Art_4163 t1_j94zaue wrote

If you've been following this subreddit, you would've seen a number of posts on gene therapy or similar. So I would look into that if I were in the same position as you:

Medical Genetics: This is a specialized field that focuses on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of genetic diseases. Medical geneticists work with patients and families to identify genetic conditions and develop treatment plans, including gene therapy.

Oncology: Gene therapy is becoming an increasingly important tool in the treatment of cancer. As an oncologist, you would be involved in diagnosing and treating patients with cancer and could also be involved in clinical trials of gene therapy for cancer.

Immunology: Gene therapy is also being explored as a potential treatment for immune disorders such as primary immunodeficiency diseases. As an immunologist, you would be involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions and could also be involved in the development and implementation of gene therapy for these diseases.

Hematology: Gene therapy is being investigated as a potential treatment for a variety of hematological disorders, including sickle cell disease and hemophilia. As a hematologist, you would be involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions and could also be involved in the development and implementation of gene therapy for these diseases.

Neurology: Gene therapy is also being explored as a potential treatment for a variety of neurological disorders, including Parkinson's disease and spinal muscular atrophy. As a neurologist, you would be involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions and could also be involved in the development and implementation of gene therapy for these diseases.


twoforthejack t1_j94mmx9 wrote

Palliative care or gerontology. People will age, get sick, be in pain.


Solid-Brother-1439 t1_j95djcc wrote

Why no one mentioned orthopaedics? It's hard the imagine a robot putting your broken arm back together in the near future. Things involving hand work might be better protected from automation. At least for now.


WoodsieOwl31416 t1_j94dliz wrote

Medical Technologist here. Clinical labs are getting more and more automated. This means the instruments that analyze the blood and other kinds of specimens are very complex and prone to needing fixing or adjusting often. Since there's often plumbing involved with fluids running through tubes and in and out of reaction chambers they can easily become contaminated or plugged. So I think there is probably job security in fixing and servicing these instruments. You would work for the manufacturers, not the labs.


Comfortable_Art_4163 t1_j94p1k9 wrote

Are you suggesting this medical student explore plumbing in medical facilities?


sandcrawler56 t1_j94xs78 wrote

Technically a lot of the job a doctor does is basically fixing plumbing inside a human so I suppose they will do just fine :)


WoodsieOwl31416 t1_j962ven wrote

I goofed. I missed the point that you are a medical student. That advice would apply to other majors. Sorry.


WoodsieOwl31416 t1_j963nw6 wrote

When you begin ordering lab tests (if you haven't already) please bear in mind that if it takes longer than you expect, the hold up might be due to one of those instruments being 'out of control'. The techs are probably in there with screw drivers and wrenches and such and a huge manufacturer's manual trying to figure out what's wrong and fix it. We simply can't turn out a result if the controls run before and after it are not within range. This is a daily occurrence.


ExtantPlant t1_j94bdr2 wrote

Whatever degree you need to double check the diagnoses of AI.

Kinda /s, but not really.


Psychomadeye t1_j94ewf3 wrote

I don't know why you're asking this sub. You should probably go look at the subreddits more qualified. That said, people are going to be dying over the next 100 years for almost every reason. You'll have work basically no matter what you do. The main thing that's going to happen is your tools are going to improve. Find an area of medicine you think is interesting and go for it. If that's difficult, then go for research.


SarahMagical t1_j94fo5u wrote



Psychomadeye t1_j94fywu wrote

Might want to look at that again. I'm saying they're pretty much all future proof.


CatOtherwise3439 t1_j94qpgi wrote

You are incorrect


Psychomadeye t1_j94rrz9 wrote

I don't know about medicine. Just ML and some of the software they use in research. They are asking in the next twenty years. This gives current technology that beats doctors approximately seven to fifteen year window in the United States for approval in treatment. But some of that may never make it.

Edit: thirty years. I apparently forgot how to read.


Spared-No-Expense t1_j94ycs0 wrote

Biotech R&D — there's still many thousands of diseases that have yet to be 100% cured and while a nice dent might be made, that number will not be going to zero in the next 50-100 years. And even when it eventually does, there will always be enhance-based biotech research beyond that. Also, there's pretty decent upward mobility in Biotech and, when you're eventually ready to start your own company in the second half of your career (or earlier, if you have exceptional go'getitude), fundraising is pretty straightforward compared to other industries — product market fit, founder personality, marketing costs — none of it matters, they really only want to see your preclinical data (and depending on the investor, maybe the total addressable market). Even new companies going after relatively small orphan diseases get funded with good data, knowing they can charge more for these therapies to offset the smaller population, and that insurance companies will bare the cost.


H_is_for_Human t1_j94f0es wrote

Surgical specialties aren't going anywhere as long as humans are made of meat that occasionally needs repairing. Bedside nursing is also key. Technicians who acquire imaging aren't going anywhere - no one is going to let a robot roam the hallways, taking x-rays of things autonomously.

Then no matter how algorithmic the first or second line medical treatment is, you're going to have patients that the guidelines don't fit neatly and need adjustment and you need people to clearly explain and convince patients of the treatment plan.

At a higher level you need people with the requisite knowledge to understand if scientific studies that show us who should get what diagnostics or therapeutics are reliable, applicable, cost effective, worth including in overarching guidelines.


Floor_Face_ t1_j951gr0 wrote

Anything medical is what I'd imagine to be the last thing future technologies would be able to replace.

Unless we end up in a world like I Robot where we have near sentient human like robots, the medical industry will likely remain unaffected in our lifetimes.


jazzageguy t1_j9d3kfn wrote

"Remain unaffected?" It's been pretty affected already, I'd suggest. Biotech is some of the hottest tech in terms of innovation. Random example: COVID vaccines. Lifetimes? There are people alive today who were born before antibiotics, before vaccines against polio, smallpox, measles, chicken pox, before effective cancer chemotherapy.

The "medical industry" is almost unrecognizable compared to a lifetime ago, and I'm confident it'll be even more so in our lifetimes, certainly in our children's.


Smileynameface t1_j95o3mm wrote

I think leeches will make a big comeback. Gotta get those bad humours out of the system.


W_AS-SA_W t1_j96vxzx wrote

I think I remember hearing that being pimped on The Blaze.


jazzageguy t1_j9d3tbi wrote

They still use leeches in medicine! Not as much as in politics of course.


Electronic_Rub9385 t1_j95yu5v wrote

I’ve been a general practitioner for 25 years. Nothing is safe from the impacts of AI and technology. Having said that, not much has changed compared to when I started medicine 25 years ago.

Some little things have changed but nothing that is sea-leaves changing.

The biggest change that I have witnessed is the overwhelming corporatization of medicine which has not been good for doctors or patients. This will only continue to go badly unfortunately.

My advice-go where your heart leads you. Do medicine that you are passionate about. Make sure the medicine you do matches your personal values. If you don’t like interacting with patients then be a pathologist or an internal medicine sub specialist or a surgeon or a proceduralist like PM&R or anesthesia.

Eventually AI will be ubiquitous in the next 15-20 years. I will be retired. But AI is unlikely to replace us in the next 50 years. They will be more like helpers and assistants. Real replacements will probably take 150-200 years.

Any specialty you pick there is only one component to being a successful physician - exercising good judgement. If you can exercise good judgement (this comes with time, and practice and repetitions and good residency and fellowship training) you will be very successful for the rest of your life no matter what you pick.

Don’t sweat it. You will be fine with whatever you go with. Except radiology. Don’t pick that.


Particle_Partner t1_j975h74 wrote

I totally agree. Every field has its pros and cons, but fortunately, in medical training, you get to try lots of different things before graduating as a doctor. Even after that, there are different types of residencies and fellowships.

It's really a matter of finding the right personal fit, at something you're able to do physically and mentally for the next 45 years.

If you really want lifelong job security..., sorry it doesn't exist for doctors or anyone else. Plan on doing a few different things over the course of the next 45 years as you grow professionally and your interests and priorities change over time. Who knows, you might end up doing something that doesn't currently exist. Radiology and radiation oncology didn't exist in 1894, the Xray hadn't been discovered yet!


coromandelmale t1_j953ohd wrote

I think this is a valid question for r/futurology

A significant proportion of the medical profession relies on diagnostics and pattern recognition (eg medical imaging scans).

These can already be done better today with AI and will ultimately reduce our reliance on highly paid humans.

That means - like coding - many of the skills we teach at HE level will become redundant in a generation.

What will survive - and be needed more in future - are the medic’s human skills eg bedside manner, empathy, care, treatment monitoring.


Patio_Orangutan t1_j95felt wrote

I'm sure nobody expected covid to happen, so I'm gonna take a shot and say we have no idea.


W_AS-SA_W t1_j96w2k7 wrote

Actually something like Covid has been predicted for the last 50 years.


Patio_Orangutan t1_j975g7n wrote

We were very prepared


jazzageguy t1_j9d5dru wrote

If "we" is America, we were prepared for an epidemic, but sadly we were governed at the time by a bunch of drooling knuckle draggers and criminals who ignored the preparations and actually worked against the medical experts to spread disease. Most countries in the world did very much better against COVID because they were prepared and motivated and governed by normal governments


W_AS-SA_W t1_j97aafe wrote

We actually were but all of the plans were shelved because of muh freedums. The virus gave us 90 days to get our act together and get out ahead of it. We failed.


TheLit420 t1_j95u8k0 wrote

Neurosurgeon and, really, a medical specialist that never stops learning. And is creative, and willing to help. But, as it should be, robots will be able to do most diagnosing and surgery.


You, as a medical specialist, will read over the surgery and documents of what the robots do. Kinda like an auditor.


Mindless-Bee1546 t1_j96jg7c wrote

Removing bullets or any kind of trauma care type thing


davidswelt t1_j96p81d wrote

AI guy here.

While it's always important to create a human connection, current technology is getting good at imitating exactly that through conversational systems.

My bet would be on surgery, emergency medicine, and any field that does not readily spew out data for models to be trained and validated; ML is particularly good at unbiased big-picture assessments if the relevant data is available for training and then for diagnosis (and it is not, currently).

I don't think this should be your only concern -- specialities, I hear, differ in lifestyle, and ultimately I think you've got to be interested in your patients and the subject matter.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96sta3 wrote

Become a neuro-surgeon. Make big bucks. Retire after 10 years. Problem solved.


Particle_Partner t1_j9771aq wrote

After 10 years, most surgeons (and other highly trained professionals) are just hitting their stride - enough experience to be really proficient and know one's limitations, but not so old as to be set in only one way of doing things. Some would even say 10 years is too inexperienced, and many doctrs are still paying off their student loans at 10 years out, not financially ready to retire.

Besides, after having invested 20 years into professional training and becoming a surgeon or other kind of doctor, most are having too much fun to retire - retirement would be a letdown for the next 40 years.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j97928t wrote

Well, true. But there is retirement from having a boss and working on somebody else schedule.

Opening your own practice and working on your own projects can also get you close to a state of retirement.


silomshady t1_j96ypvh wrote

If you think your medical training ends with school - you are in the wrong business. Also, every branch of medicine will still be around - the only thing that will change is the equipment, technology, and techniques. But as long as you stay up to date and stay educated you are good.

If you wanna be irreplaceable- master the EMR/EHR system your hospital or practice uses, this will save you HOURS a day in filling out patient info - thus allowing you to handle more patients. Which hospital admins always like :)


DoctorGrumble t1_j97hccv wrote

As a radiologist, I can assure you our specialty is not obsolete as many people have been suggesting since Vinod Khosla's hot take 10+ years ago.

If you don't understand medical imaging, when it's used, it's strengths/weaknesses/limitations, I can certainly understand why you would think it's easy for an AI to analyze the date/image and make the appropriate diagnosis. Unfortunately though, most imaging does not have an algorithmic yes/no answer and can have multiple not untrue interpretations given intrinsic limitations in imaging technology. This is where the "art" of radiology comes in - communicating what you can say, what you can't say, and what the next best steps are to answer the question in a way that a provider can understand. Yes AI at this point can identify things like brain bleeds, pneumothorax/pneumoperitoneum, lung nodules, and many other "findings". But it is not anywhere near actually catching all the findings, interpreting them in the clinical context, and making appropriate recommendations (and for the record a lot of radiologists aren't good at this either).

As AI gets better, I'll bet that it's role in radiology will continue along the same path it currently has - as a tool to assist us. In order to handle the continually increasing volume of scans that are ordered, we will need tools to help increase our efficiency while maintaining accuracy, and that's where I believe AI will come in.

This doesn't even take into account the procedural work I do as a rad - US/CT/Fluoro guided biopsies, aspirations, drain placement, ablations, etc. When AI gets to a point where it can do these for use... I don't think there are many medical subspecialties that will be safe. And whether we allow AI to get to that point is probably one of the biggest ethical questions we as a society will have to answer in the future.

Anyways, long rant over. Just tired of people who have no idea what an actual radiologist does say confidently and without real information that our specialty is obsolete and won't exist in 10 years (it's been 11 years since Khosla first said that and we currently have a pretty significant radiologist shortage in this country).

But hey, if people want to believe it I won't complain - gives us great job security.


UmbertoEcoTheDolphin t1_j98o4n6 wrote

First guess: none. 100 years from now, smart toilets will be step one.


runaway-devil t1_j98zujq wrote

Also med student here.

I've been struck with the same question, then I came to realize that if there ever is an AI that can replace a doctor, then they would also be able to replace pretty much everyone else. Imagine there's a medical robot that could perform surgeries: It could learn how we are anatomically, how to spot conditions, how to surgically treat them, etc. If properly maintained, it would be more accurate than a human ever could. Then again, if there ever was a machine like that, what it wouldn't be able to do? So, there's not much sense into trying and figure out what specialty to choose based on if it's most likely to be replaced by AI or not. Still, if you're going that way: Any surgery field, Psychiatry, Neurology, Anesthesiology.


EggsInaTubeSock t1_j9924v7 wrote

Seriously all of them.

Even with new tech and new solves comes new problems. An expert is an expert, and even with solutions in some arenas, there will be other issues.

Chase what interests you. It makes learning easy.


Euphoric_Gas9879 t1_j9av45z wrote

Perhaps psychiatry. Some people may find it too odd to talk to a robot for psychotherapy. Or something like “computational medicine” where the machine does the work and you can take the credit.


AlphaWolve2 t1_j9b64c5 wrote

Neurology, neurosurgery and neuroprosthesis, nanobiology


hillsfar t1_j9bp9l6 wrote

Pharmacists in the U.S. put up a legal moat. They have to be PharmDs.

Never mind that computers can cross-check for problems between medicarions that are contraindicated.

Never mind that in Australia, you only need a specialty bachelor, exam, and one-year paid internship.

Never mind that in Taiwan, doctors can have their nurses dispense many medicines and you can also go to a store without prescription and pick up many kinds of medicines (except stuff like painkillers above acetaminophen or ibuprofen in strength).

There likely can be legal moats put in place to hold.


gregra193 t1_j94sznx wrote

Dermatology? People always want to look good. They don’t want skin cancer, either.


FlightBunny t1_j94vqxe wrote

Radiology, non-invasive treatments will only keep increasing.


jawshoeaw t1_j94ysju wrote

Radiology is a carriage return away from being replaced by AI


jazzageguy t1_j9d4lgd wrote

Just as carriage returns, in their turn, were replaced a while back


Obiwan_ca_blowme t1_j95td9a wrote

None. Attrition stemming from ever-lower Medicare reimbursement rates will kill all of the medical professions.


tinatickles t1_j96olk1 wrote

Surgery will probably take a little longer to replace than the diagnostics, but there are no future proof jobs. Radiology is already obsolete.