To Be or Not To Be, That is the Question?

Recently, two of our readers responded to a post entitled, "Are These Products Truly Dynamic?" It was evident that one respondent was critical, accusing surgeons of being unethical and criminal in their behavior indicative of the climate that exists in our industry. To generalize is to convict the entire profession. Yet, one can understand our reader's frustrations. In fairness to surgeons, not every surgeon that is involved in a study or development of an emerging technology is on the take. This point counterpoint tete-a-tete is interesting in that some physician respondent's argument was did you go to medical school, residency, or fellowship and do you perform the state of the art? For many of us the answer is simply, NO. But unlike the current business model that exists in our industry, for those of us that are tenured, our experience and mentoring by your own peers has provided us with an intelligent level of knowledge about medicine. And contrary to those beliefs, many of us pride ourselves on the fact that we can have a conversation with a surgeon and provide an intelligent answer, or listen to a presentation on a specific products efficacy and evaluate its usefulness. Unfortunately, many surgeons opinions have been jaded because of the quality and dilution of talent in the industry. With that said, how do surgeons think we view them when it comes to running their own business or attempting to be a business person?

Just like physicians argue about our academic background and training to opine about their professional decisions, those of us in the business have every right to question their integrity

and commitment to their patients well being, as well as their business acumen. Just because you were smart enough to go to med school doesn't qualify you to be a race car driver. Some cannot execute their own state of the art and like to tell us how to run our business. Let's face it, just because you graduated from med school doesn't make you a great surgeon. Even the Major League Baseball has a place for .240 hitters. All one has to do is attend a motion preservation meeting, or, a spine arthroplasty meeting and look around the room as many of your own peers shake their heads in disbelief to some of the procedures that are presented. The difference between us is that we attempt to honestly critique a protocol, whereas your peers dare not question the professor. It is your professions omerta or code of silence. Ever wonder what would compell someone to perform a three or four level total disc arthroplasty? Would you even allow someone to implant some of these systems into your own mother, father, sister, brother or spouse? How cynical can we be when we look at some of the same names that would endorse any piece of shit concept or device. Just because some fool and his money believed in the potential of a financial windfall, doesn't mean that the product will succeed, nor, does it mean that some of these products will find an indication to substantiate its place in a spine surgeons armamentarium. Let's be honest, when an observer looks at the dais, its an old boys club that seeks to perpetuate its own existence within the industry, mentoring younger surgeons on the nuances of how to contribute yet manipulate the industry. These aren't TSB's views, these are the views of your own peers.

So in closing, just like Goldman Sachs, SAS and NASS need an image make-over. Before any surgeon goes on to cry foul when one of our readers expresses their first amendment right, maybe it would behoove you to monitor your own profession before you criticize ours. TSB wants to know what our readers think?