this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
562 points (98.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39713 readers
1911 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Are these really the people that should be required to work so much? Isn't their job about handling life and death daily? Wouldn't we want exactly these people to come fully rested to work every single day and be fully staffed?

I don't know if there are jobs with similar stakes that are so carelessly staffed and disgustingly paid.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 points 1 hour ago

Who's we? I'm certainly not okay with it

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Momentum is hard to overcome and it’s been done this way for many many years

The guy who is largely attributed to making the medical residency system so punishingly difficult in terms of hours was coke addict btw. William Stewart Halsted. That was like 1890 and residents didn’t have their hours limited until 2003 (and even then, barely)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I saw that they were "limited" to 80 fucking hours a week (in the US). Quite the limit.

[–] Meatwagon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I'm not okay with it but it's the type of problem that can only be solved by them. They have to go on strike and protest.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 1 points 46 minutes ago (1 children)

In a vacuum, yes. The problem is that when, say, chip fabricators go on strike, orders for microchips don't get fulfilled on time and the company loses money. When SAG goes on strike for months, movies get delayed, and people usually cheer them on in solidarity. When MEDICAL professionals go on strike en mass, people will die... Quickly, in some cases. People say they support us, and I get a free breakfast once a year at Denny's during Nurse's Week, but nobody's going to cheer on the picket line outside when their dad or grandmother is INSIDE, sitting in their own poop, or not being fed, or having respiratory distress.

You don't go into nursing for the money or easy work. You don't even do it because it's "just a job to pay the bills" because there's way easier ways to make this little money. You do it to because you're the kind of person who is more fulfilled by helping a stranger than by helping yourself, and those people are not ok with risking the life and safety of their patients over a shift differential. A LOT of nurses would cross the line to help them anyway, which would negate the whole effort.. It sucks, but that's it.

I've been a nurse for about 10 years now after getting out of the military, so I have some perspective on this, but I don't know what the way forward is without letting a couple of vulnerable people die to catalyze change in the field.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

We have to vote. They can't be left alone.

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Wait until they find out about pilots

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

this is bad

this is just as bad

I think we agree

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 hours ago

Or public transport operators

[–] lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

This is actually an interesting question.

They experimented with “office hours” for doctors and patients were dying more than double/triple shift.

This because the information lost during handoff was more valuable than doctors being more tired (and by consequence doing more mistakes).

This is a textbook example of the risks of lost context

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago

I'd like to see those numbers. I'm not finding clear numbers on shift-length mortality. This meta review (Systematic Review of the Impact of Physician Work Schedules on Patient Safety with Meta-Analyses of Mortality Risk, 2023, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2023.06.014 ) says

Limiting all resident physicians to 80-hour work weeks and 28-hour shifts in 2003 was associated with an 11% reduction in mortality (p < 0.001). Limited shift durations and shorter work weeks were also associated with improved patient safety in clinical trials and observational studies not specifically tied to policy changes.

I think we can all agree that a 28 hour shift is fucking insane and that anybody doing such a long shift will not be of sound capacity.

And if hand-offs are killing more people than work hours, then that just means that the hand-off procedures are terrible. I'd want to see what kind of hand-offs are being compared and if hand-off methods have different patient events.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I mean, did they increase staff numbers proportionally to hour reduction or did they just have people go home? Because if it's the latter, then duh.

[–] kamen@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

I've also heard that and it makes sense, but if it's a statistic already at this point, can't it serve as a way to improve information storing and handover? I have nothing in common with the medical industry, this is just an outside observation.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

I fully agree with this as far as why they do extended shifts of 12 hours or more. But, OP did say double and triple shifts so they might not be just referencing the longer shifts. In that case it is corporate greed.

[–] vapordays@leminal.space 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

A lot of people have alluded to this already, but I'll simplify.

"We" are not OK with it. "We" are not the ones making the decisions

Hospitals and such are fine with it because they're a business now and not as much involved in the health of the public beyond making sure they can still pay them.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

We're not. But, just like AI, executives with the ideology of rapists don't care about our consent.

Who would've thought that running every industry and business like mini dictatorships would backfire? Thanks capitalism!

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 5 points 22 hours ago

More like the ideology of slave masters, which includes rapists plus oh so much more.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 day ago

The greatest fear of capitalist administrators is that there might be a slow night in the hospital and a few employees have some down time to take a breath where no "production" is taking place. The shareholders would not be amused. That's why they staff hospitals with the bare minimum, paying them as little as possible and using them as much as possible.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.

Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.

It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?

That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.

But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons — a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.

You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all ‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’ yourself.

from Now and After by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 5: Unemployment. Available to read for free here.

Even in countries where healthcare is socialised, they are run "efficiently" like a capitalist business by administrators who care not for healthcare but for finances, "balancing the books", and bean counting.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

The better question is why are the US Labor Laws still shitty. The Scandinavian countries leave everybody in their dust trail and the USA should simply copy them. Good luck finding the politicians, uncorrupt ones, that will change the laws.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Iirc, here in the UK it’s illegal to ask a doctor or nurse to work s triple shift. I think it should be for doubles as well, excepting major emergencies which involve a sudden influx of patients

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

A double shift is 24 hours. Medical shifts are 12 hours.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bouh@jlai.lu 4 points 23 hours ago

Capitalism can only provide basic services to everyone if those services are borderline slavery. It works for all the basic needs : food, healthcare, construction.

One might say it only works through slavery for everything because most of the non essential things come from other countries you can call colonies. But the thing is that without redistribution the basic services cannot be paid correctly.

[–] deadymouse@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

Capitalism has no pity.

[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 21 points 1 day ago (9 children)

No one does this outside of the USA. It is not at all normal, just like being stuck with the imperial system of measurements.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? I live in Europe and this is standard. I know midwives, nurses, and doctors and they have the worst work schedules. I think in France health workers can even be prohibited from striking. The government declared it an "essential" job and when there aren't enough workers, striking isn't allowed. THey are always understaffed, so they aren't allowed to strike. GReat eh?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've worked with surgeons in US and Europe. It is definitely worse in the US but surgical culture is also like this in Europe just to a slightly lesser degree.

It's deeply rooted in medical / surgical culture and much of it comes from not wanting to pay for more of these highly trained workers when you can just squeeze more out of a smaller cohort. Issues with handoffs for patient care are real with shift type work, but this could be improved if it became more standard.

Gen Z is a bit more concerned about these kinds of issues so some changes may be happening soon, but ultimately this will not likely ever self regulate and only legislative changes would effectively change this culture.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Because the wealthy can afford to have well-rested medical professionals at a moment's notice. Elites would care much more about the wellbeing of the typical doctor, if they had to have the ordinary doctor working on them.

[–] imhungry@leminal.space 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Healthcare isn't the same as other jobs. It's better to do several 12 hour shifts in a row for 3-4 days than to take 5-6 8 hour shifts in a row. It's better to do them all in a row at once rather than take days off in between. Work when you have momentum. You will burn out a lot faster if you work every single day, even if it's for a short period of time.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 1 points 17 hours ago

Isn't OP asking why not 8-12 hour shifts instead of 16-24 hour shifts though. Probably not suggesting more days either.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You know what's funny? I actually think the situation is a lot better than you're making it out to be.

You're not entirely wrong. There absolutely are positions in hospitals where people do insane schedules like 24 or 48 hour shifts. But that's mostly concentrated around emergency medicine, trauma, surgical residency, ICU coverage, and certain on-call specialties. There’s definitely a culture surrounding ER staff and surgeons where sleep deprivation almost gets treated like some badge of honor.

But the majority of the medical world in America does not operate like that.

Most hospitals primarily run on normal shift structures. Nurses on regular floors and patient wings are usually working standard 8 or 12 hour rotations with multiple shift changes throughout the day just like any other industry. And once you get into private practice, some doctors are only in office a few days a week seeing a relatively small number of patients across different locations.

People also forget hospitals are not run exclusively by doctors and nurses. They're massive operations with huge amounts of support staff, technicians, imaging departments, transport, administration, custodial staff, billing, labs, and so on, most of whom work completely normal schedules.

So yes, what you're describing does exist. But I don't think it's remotely as universal or apocalyptic as people make it sound. A lot of public perception comes from dramatized media where every hospital is portrayed like a nonstop trauma center operating at DEFCON 1 twenty-four hours a day.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is why a very conservative estimate of 1/20 hospital deaths are attributed to medical error.

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

my gf is a nurse and it is absolutely bonkers how the healthcare system works at all, shit is very run down and society as a whole needs a lot of shifting for how taxation affects the health care system. tax the fucking rich and make them pay their fair share and siphon that into healthcare.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 179 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

No we're not. But generally governments everywhere want to starve the medical industry to make it generate profit for the wealthy. The US is their role model.

Glares at Doug Ford

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›