A PhD in Medicine and even a PhD in Medicine are not synonymous with a good medical practitioner. While one was spending time on science, the other was gaining medical experience. Academic degrees in the overwhelming majority of cases are written in order to amuse their arrogance, as well as to take a higher position, since it is customary in society to put such a person above a doctor without a scientific degree in advance. However, if you read the topic of his dissertation, it may often turn out that it does not correspond to his specialty. It can just as often be that this is a dummy with no scientific value. But the most important thing for a doctor to write his dissertation is to spend a lot of time, while not doing medical work. This leads to dequalification. And it happens that someone else writes for money, etc. Conclusion: when you read on the door that a doctor's degree is far from synonymous with a good doctor, but more often the other way around. Doing science and being a good clinician is often not the same thing.
I think so. And YOU?
The answer cannot be unambiguous. Everything is individual. But personally, I am in favor of the doctor using elements of a scientific approach in his practice. As for doctors, we now have scientific and practical centers where the same candidates and doctors of science treat people. If we recall the old editions of the health program, then most of the outstanding doctors from the graduates had degrees. Therefore, it is possible to combine and this does not always contradict one another.
No, it is not. YES, OFTEN this indicates that a person is interested in something in their specialty. But not always. And often the dissertation is very indirectly related to what a person does in practice. But this does not always mean something - I personally know an excellent obstetrician0gynecologist with a dissertation on organizational health
Medical practice and medical science are not the same thing. One and the same person can both do both (and get a PhD and be a good practitioner), or can choose one thing.
Not every person with a medical degree is a good doctor in the understanding of the layman. For example, a pathologist in a hospital morgue or an expert in a microbiological laboratory are also doctors, but they do not deal with treatment.
A candidate's degree is evidence that a person has done some scientific work, made some contribution to medical science and he knows a little more about the topic of his work than another doctor. If a person has defended his dissertation in his immediate specialty, especially on his practical material, then yes, this may say that a person is a good doctor in his field.
Why are there so many of them? And why not, medicine is full of interesting topics for research, enough for everyone. This, after all, is not such a high degree.
As always, not everything is as straightforward as we would like. If we take an ideal situation as an example, then we can say that this is a good doctor, but again, if he has practice. Because you can unlearn in graduate school, write a Ph.D., but at the same time not have much experience in working with patients. To write a candidate's thesis now - you need to unlearn in residency, and then go to graduate school, before you could be an applicant and write a thesis without graduate school. In any case, if a person takes a responsible approach to his work, then, before starting to write a candidate's thesis, he will study well the area in which he is going to engage in science. Writing a thesis, depending on its topic, of course, but one way or another will give him additional experience and knowledge in his field and, based on this, we can say that he is a good specialist, and he knows his specialty at a level higher than the average polyclinic doctor. Plus, he can provide more qualified help in issues that he studied in the process of scientific activity, for example, the psychotherapist had a thesis on "Psychoendocrinology: depressive syndromes in various thyroid pathologies", from which it is not difficult to conclude what he can provide more comprehensive care for patients with various psychological manifestations of thyroid diseases.
But this was described as an ideal situation, and given our realities, it should be noted that there can be a whole bunch of problems. The candidate's paper can be written by someone else, and the commission was paid in advance for its defense. It can be generally initially bought in one way or another, acquaintances, pulls and stuff like that. To defend a candidate's thesis is a waste of money, because in Russia, as usual, you have to "put down" everywhere. First, you spend your money on some research and so on, because all costs are your own business, then you go to defend yourself and give the commission, like the Moscow princes of the Crimean Khanate, and it's not a fact that you will defend yourself without problems.
I think it's no secret for you that many dissertations are devoid of scientific novelty, and their relevance lies in the fact that without writing and defending a dissertation (read: compilation), academic degrees are not awarded. But imagine an ideal world where all doctors with advanced degrees are indeed scientists who have made significant discoveries. Does this mean that they will practice at the same level as they do their theoretical research? Practical medicine (and especially the health care system) is far from fundamental; it faces slightly different tasks, medical workers involved in clinical practice have different competencies than scientists.
Why is there so much - because the degree increases patients' confidence in a specialist, contributes to career growth (incl. his material expression) and raises self-esteem. Many people far from science delight in hearing the phrase "candidate / doctor of sciences" (especially if it is also accompanied by an academic title), although they do not understand and do not want to understand what should be behind this and what really stands. Therefore, the indicator of a doctor's professionalism is not the degree as such, but his real knowledge and competence, the effectiveness of the treatment prescribed by him and other criteria familiar to us that allow us to distinguish quality from quackery.