Imagine that you and a bunch of shipwreck survivors are cast away on a desert island somewhere. Between you, you have enough manpower, resources and expertise to live on the island indefinitely - you don’t know when you’ll be rescued, and bla-de-bla-de-bla. Your fellow survivors are a cordial and helpful bunch, but you don’t have a doctor among you. If you could choose one of the three, which one would you have as the one playing the role of ‘acting medical professional’ on the island:
(There aren’t any medical supplies on the island, and all the below are experienced and qualified professionals…)
Nurse.
(He/she would know a lot about diagnosing common medical problems, and could probably stitch people up and look after them when they get sick. Still, they probably wouldn’t be very good at things like taking out an appendix.)
Veterinary surgeon.
(He/she would not be shy about cutting people open, and would (I guess) know a thing or two about which organs go where, how to splint bones, etc… But, their area of expertise is animals…)
Psychiatrist
(He/she would have some medical training, but - and perhaps most importantly - as people start to go a bit bonkers on the island, they would be able to recognise it and (hopefully) act upon it. Perhaps developing mental illness in a situation such as this is as much of an issue as physical illness. Or, perhaps owing to lack of medical supplies, the previous two simply aren’t as much use as a psychiatrist would be. At the end of the day, though a psychiatrist wouldn’t be very helpful with the nuts-and-bolts of patching people up (would they?))
Vet absolutely. Its funny I was just discussing this with friends, that a vet is clearly superior to any specialized doctor in an apocalypse scenario (specialized= dermatologist, orthopedist, etc… GP and ER/Trauma excepted).
Vets know a lot about analogous systems shared by all mammals and can do everything from a first-aid perspective that a nurse can do, plus they are relatively experienced with surgery. Vets also have more experience diagnosing a patient that is wholly unable to describe their symptoms which is always a plus in an emergency scenario.
Vets also have basic pharmacy knowledge and dispensing skills, such as calculating dosages by weight and compounding, which they use routinely in their work. So if you find a cache of meds, its vet all the way.
The vet is my first impulse…but thinking it through for a minute…what’s he going to do with no supplies? Burst appendix or just an infected toenail, without a knife and some antibiotics, you’re fucked. With no supplies, everyone’s on about equal footing here when it comes to first aid. Either you can improvise a bandage out of banana leaves or you can’t.
So I’ll take my pick based on their ingenuity and ability to be creative, not their profession. From the 10 years or so I’ve been working in and running first aid at various festivals with varying levels of supply and budget, that would probably be the vet, only because they tend to be rather confident improvising, while nurses tend to look around in a panic for the sterile tray when they see a particularly bad nosebleed. But I’ve worked with some great improvisational nurses, too, so it’s hard to generalize.
The psychiatrist? He’d probably make a good meal. Dibs on the thigh meat.
Yep, vet. Sure, their expertise is in animals, but they have an enormous amount of general medical knowledge pertaining to humans. The psychiatrist would be my second choice, but in a pinch, you can survive longer with a mental illness than with a serious physical one.
Nurse unless there is some gear/drugs involved. In that case the vet. Most nurses I know are used to getting creative with little to work with. Full docs, even pet docs, are too used to having everything they want or need.
Yeah…I think that the ‘no medical equipment or supplies’ clause is very important here. All three might be able to diagnose appendicitis, but I suppose (?) that they would be as useless as each other in terms of actually doing anything about it.
The veterinarian, for sure. They know how everything works, and have a broader base of training, education and experience. And if someone needs medical care and is unresponsive, they know how to diagnose and treat a patient who doesn’t/can’t talk. Diagnosing and removing the aforementioned appendix? The vet by a mile.
I wouldn’t want to get stuck on an island with a psychiatrist, no matter what capacity they’re acting in.
As for practical medical knowledge… as far as I can tell, anything you could accomplish on a deserted island could be done by a nurse. Taking out an appendix is not something you do with a sharp rock and a coconut, no matter what your medical training was. I suppose it might depend on a little actual qualifications and experience of the nurse, but I’d feel pretty confident that they know enough.
Vets also know a lot of human medicine, but it’s not their primary focus.
Vet.
A chipped flint rock makes a wonderful knife. So does volcanic glass. A Vet also knows poisonous plants.
Nurse would be the 2nt choice.
Psychiatrist? Only if he/she was a survivalist on the side
