Super-specialization has created organs without organisms, treatments without patients, and decisions without contexts

 

A Jack of all trades is not actually a bad thing. It's the best way to future-proof oneself. It is time we encourage the jack of all trades that thrives in any situation. Let me elaborate on this in the context of the super- specializations that have emerged in the medical field. At some point in life, everyone requires medical attention. While general practitioners (GPs) provide the first line of care, more serious or complex conditions often require the attention of specialists such as cardiologists, pediatricians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, and urologists. The rise of specialization in medicine has enabled doctors to develop in-depth knowledge within specific fields, resulting in more accurate diagnoses and targeted treatments. This progression is a natural outcome of scientific advancement and has significantly improved patient outcomes. In recent years, however, the trend has moved further into what is now called 'superspecialization.' This is where doctors narrow their practice to extremely specific areas within their field. Orthopedics provides a telling example of how far specialization has advanced. The field now includes subspecialties such as joint replacement, pediatricorthopedics, sports medicine, spine surgery, hand and micro vascular surgery, orthopedic trauma, musculoskeletal oncology, geriatric orthopaedics, and regenerative medicine. Even within ophthalmology, there ar subspecialties with few doctors in specialize eye care centers/hospitals only performin cataract surgery, and letting other doctor handle only retina cases. In fact, retin surgery is now divided further, with som experts focusing solely on the peripheraretina. A patient with a retinal tear may fin themselves needing a different specialissimply because the first one does not deal wa that exact area. Dentistry, too, has witnessed a surge specialization. The Dental Council of In recognizes eleven postgraduate (MDS specializations .These include Oral an Maxillofacial Surgery, Orthodontics an Dentofacial Orthopedics, Periodontology Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, OтаMedicine and Radiology, Public Healt Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Microbiolog Sports Dentistry, and Forensic Odontology. This kind of compartmentalization is ne limited to allopathic medicine alone: eve Ayurveda, a system traditionally associate with holistic healing and general care, haembraced this trend. Dr. Sajna Ali of Ayurnav Ayurveda informs that various specialization are now offered under MD and MS three-yeacourses. For instance, Bala Roga refers Pediatrics, Kayachikitsa to Internal Medicin and Prasuti StriRoga to Gynecology an Obstetrics. Those specializing in surgery earn an MS in Shayla Tantra. Plans are also underway to introduce super-specialized DM programs in areas such as psychiatry, reproductive medicine, orthopedics, oncology, gerontology, and hematology. While such specialization improves precision and often leads to better outcomes, it can also create silos. Super-specialists often hesitate to step outside their narrowly defined domains, resulting in fragmented care. Patients with multiple health conditions can find themselves navigating a maze of doctors, each focused on a single organ system or disease, with no one looking at the bigger picture. This is especially problematic for elderly patients, who typically require a holistic and coordinated approach to their health. In a typical hospital scenario, a single patient might be managed simultaneously by a cardiologist, a nephrologist, an endocrinologist, a gastroenterologist, and an infectious disease specialist. Despite the individual expertise, no single doctor takes responsibility for the patient's overall wellbeing. This lack of integration can result in conflicting recommendations, repeated investigations, and mounting stress and costs for patients and their families. A report published by The Guardian, London raised concerns about this trend, faulting modern medicine for treating patients as isolated cases rather than as whole individuals. It emphasized the need for medical training that enables doctors to assess patients comprehensively, not just within the narrow boundaries of their specialty. In earlier decades, physicians tended to be more generalist. They collaborated across specialties, discussed diagnoses and treatments with peers, and often shared responsibility for patient outcomes. Today, however, such collaboration is not just rare but sometimes actively discouraged. An ICU doctor who raises concerns outside their specialty may be seen as overstepping; а urologist who identifies a bladder mass as tuberculosis rather than cancer may be reprimanded for making a diagnosis deemed outside their domain. The result is a rigid compartmentalization of knowledge and authority that sidelines broader clinical insight and promotes excessive testing and referrals. Despite these drawbacks, superspecialization continues to thrive, and for good reason. Specialists offer a higher degree of accuracy in diagnosis and treatment, which can lead to better patient outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and more efficient interventions. Their focused expertise is especially critical in rare or complex cases where generalists may lack the depth of knowledge required. Moreover, many medical breakthroughs and innovations have emerged precisely because of the intense focus that specialization demands. However, this fragmentation of care leaves patients in a difficult position. One of the most significant dilemmas they face is how to make informed decisions when they lack the medical background to evaluate or reconcile differing medical opinions. In addition, there is also the fact that our society is becoming excessively medicalized. And that reminds us of Austrian theologian, philosopher and social critics, Ivan Illich who made a searing critique of modern medicine in his book Limits to Medicine: Medical Nemesis. Published in late 1970s, the book refers to the medical establishment that has evolved into a major threat to health itself. Illich believed that medicine was undermining natural healing processes, eroding personal autonomy, and turning health into a domain monopolized by professionals and institutions. Noted health expert Vinesh Kumar points out that society increasingly assumes a person is 'ill until proven healthy.' Tracing the etymology of the word "health," he notes that it once meant "whole," "holy," "uninjured," and "to heal." It is only in the last century that the term has come to signify a clinical absence of disease-a narrow, often mechanistic view. The need, therefore, is to treat patients as integrated wholes. The human body is not a machine made up of discrete parts; it is an interconnected, dynamic system influenced by biology, psychology, and environment. India presents a unique case in this regard. Unlike many Western countries that operate through structured referral systems, patients in India often consult specialists directly, bypassing general practitioners altogether. There is also the issue relating to unethical practice that few doctors indulge in. As pointed out by noted cardiologist Dr.Upendra Kaul, in his well acclaimed book 'When The Heart Speaks': "every referred case for angioplasty and angiography used to get a kickback of Rs.5000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. In fact, seeing this trend, few doctors went a step further and started paying their referring doctors Rs.1 lakh in advance and adjusting it as and when patients came in an ingenious move." He reminds doctors that their primary duties are to offer comfort and empathy. To address these issues, there is growing recognition of the need to re-emphasize the role of generalist physicians. Some countries have introduced dual-training programs to develop doctors who are skilled in both general and specialized medicine. These hybrid practitioners can offer a depth of knowledge along with a breadth of vision, helping to bridge the gap between narrow expertise and holistic care. Strengthening general medicine education, improving interdisciplinary communication, and raising public awareness about the importance of primary care can significantly enhance the quality and coherence of healthcare delivery. 32 The objective should not be to reject specialization, but to balance it with broad based, integrated, and compassionate care. Illich's critique is ultimately a call to rethink our relationship with medicine-not to discard it, but to reclaim health as something that belongs first and foremost to individuals and communities. However, where one may disagree with Illich is when he says that "modern medicine is a negation of health. It makes more people sick than it heals." This is certainly a wide misplaced assumption. The average life span has increased from less than 33 years in 1900 to over 70 years now. How else does one explain the almost elimination of dreaded disease such as polio, measles, rabies, guinea worm, malaria etc.? This is essentially because of huge advancements in medical research and invention of more effective drugs, availability of precise surgical tools and adoption of improved diagnostic tests that are available nowadays. The way forward therefore lies in integration, not opposition. Specialization must be retained for the advantages it brings, but it must also be tempered by systems that emphasize coordination, primary care, and whole-person understanding. The key challenge for doctors is to equip them to notice unexpected connections so that they examine problems in their second or third discipline with the mental habits formed in their original training. As the old Chinese proverb says, "If there is a headache, examine the feet." The lesson is simple: the body-and by extension, HealthCare must be viewed as an interconnected whole. Only then can we fulfil the true promise of medicine: to enhance HEALTH SPAN rather than focus only on extending LIFE SPAN.

DISCLAIMER: 

The views expressed in the Article above are Ashok Ogra views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy:  Ashok Ogra  and Koshur Samachar-2025, May