This year, 30,000 people will have a ruptured aneurysm in the US. 40% of those patients will die, and of those who survive 66% will suffer a permanent neurological deficit. These figures seared themselves into the back of my eyelids following my mother suffering from two aneurysms and a subarachnoid hemorrhage during my first year of high school. With a 5-year mortality rate of 59%, my mother passed away from complications of her procedure 3 years later – two weeks after I graduated high school. Across the United States there is broad regional variation in treatment for aneurysm patients, with much of the country using worse care that leads to worse outcomes. However, small studies have found that there could be better methods – or better utilization of current methods. For example, small scale studies have found that certain methods of intracranial coiling may be more effective than open clipping – yet clipping is still a regular practice used today. My mother’s hemorrhage was clipped. Much of the research is small scale and lacks generalizability, as many physicians don’t want to go through the long and arduous research that comes with researching patients with long recovery paths. Many with a Ph.D. are locked out of filling this gap, as this area of patient care is highly specialized, and many seek a clinician with a formal medical education. This leads to variation in treatment guidelines, as there is a lack of large-scale research that can be applied to the entire population. I want to start putting together the building blocks to address this problem in my education today. Currently, I am studying biology, with a concentration on biochemistry and molecular biology. This is giving me the solid foundation in the mechanisms that underly all of medicine, and building this foundation will allow me to intuitively work in and research medicine. My undergraduate education and research aren’t just stepping-stones for getting accepted into a post-graduate program – they are the basis for my understanding of everything I hope to work in. Beyond this, I want to use my time in an M.D./Ph.D. program to create a strong ability to function as both a researcher and a physician – translating the work I will do in the lab to my patients. A Ph.D. is vital for the depth of research I want to undertake in understanding the molecular and surgical nuances of treating aneurysms. It will provide the expertise necessary to execute large-scale studies with statistical rigor, and to analyze outcomes in ways that can influence clinical guidelines. By integrating an M.D., I can bridge the lab and the clinic, ensuring that my findings translate into actionable protocols that save lives. Thousands die every year – not because physicians and researchers aren’t qualified – but because establishing effective evidence, connecting it to medicine, and creating meaningful dialogue and principles for patient care is something that is sorely needed yet sorely missing.

This year, 30,000 people will have a ruptured aneurysm in the US. 40% of those patients will die, and of those who survive 66% will suffer a permanent neurological deficit. These figures seared themselves into the back of my eyelids following my mother suffering from two aneurysms and a subarachnoid hemorrhage during my first year of high school. With a 5-year mortality rate of 59%, my mother passed away from complications of her procedure 3 years later – two weeks after I graduated high school. Across the United States there is broad regional variation in treatment for aneurysm patients, with much of the country using worse care that leads to worse outcomes. However, small studies have found that there could be better methods – or better utilization of current methods. For example, small scale studies have found that certain methods of intracranial coiling may be more effective than open clipping – yet clipping is still a regular practice used today. My mother’s hemorrhage was clipped. Much of the research is small scale and lacks generalizability, as many physicians don’t want to go through the long and arduous research that comes with researching patients with long recovery paths. Many with a Ph.D. are locked out of filling this gap, as this area of patient care is highly specialized, and many seek a clinician with a formal medical education. This leads to variation in treatment guidelines, as there is a lack of large-scale research that can be applied to the entire population. I want to start putting together the building blocks to address this problem in my education today. Currently, I am studying biology, with a concentration on biochemistry and molecular biology. This is giving me the solid foundation in the mechanisms that underly all of medicine, and building this foundation will allow me to intuitively work in and research medicine. My undergraduate education and research aren’t just stepping-stones for getting accepted into a post-graduate program – they are the basis for my understanding of everything I hope to work in. Beyond this, I want to use my time in an M.D./Ph.D. program to create a strong ability to function as both a researcher and a physician – translating the work I will do in the lab to my patients. A Ph.D. is vital for the depth of research I want to undertake in understanding the molecular and surgical nuances of treating aneurysms. It will provide the expertise necessary to execute large-scale studies with statistical rigor, and to analyze outcomes in ways that can influence clinical guidelines. By integrating an M.D., I can bridge the lab and the clinic, ensuring that my findings translate into actionable protocols that save lives. Thousands die every year – not because physicians and researchers aren’t qualified – but because establishing effective evidence, connecting it to medicine, and creating meaningful dialogue and principles for patient care is something that is sorely needed yet sorely missing.

When I first came to SLU, I wasn't sure I wanted to be a doctor. As a Biology and Political Science double major, law and medicine fascinated me, and I saw routes to helping people in both. I entered my first year at SLU with one goal: to decide on medicine or law. Initially, the choice was very difficult. I’d feel fulfilled after tackling a particularly difficult biology lecture, followed by thinking that the mechanisms in my Foreign Policy class revealed the inner workings of society. This back and forth seemed to continue without respite. I spent most of first semester in this limbo, it wasn’t until winter break that my choice became clear – I knew I wanted to do medicine. I knew there was a capacity to help people in both professions – law and politics can represent the underrepresented, and treating the ill is vital. However, when I began shadowing, medicine became clear to me. The experience was transformative. I saw what I think is the most help any profession can provide anyone. Every choice and action taken had a noticeable impact on every patient's day-to-day life, and I knew that between my two passions, only medicine could provide the far-reaching change I seek to create in the world. I saw a real and honest passion for helping people – caring for patients in only the way a physician could. Patients weren’t just cured, they were understood. Even something as simple as just asking a patient if they were comfortable provided palpable relief to them. I knew this was what I had to do. I haven’t dropped my passion for advocacy and politics. I know the medical system is deeply flawed – ridden with the inequities baked into society. The intersection of healthcare and politics is something that I’ve learned about across both my passions. Whether a patient can’t afford medication – like those I served with WeCare. Or a patient struggles with the drug abuse that's rampant throughout society – like the patient I witnessed Dr. Befeler treat. Even just representing those who feel like they don’t have a voice – like the students living side by side with me in the dorms. I have learned that there are issues doctors should care about that may not be treated necessarily by a scalpel or scope. I want to be a doctor. I can say that with absolute certainty now. But I don’t want to just be a doctor who cares when a patient is right in front of me – I want to leverage the authority and trust bestowed on me as a doctor to inspire change. To fight for policies that would make patients feel better and see me less. Intersecting politics and medicine, I want to be a doctor who cares for patients wholly. SLU, with its placement in an urban environment, a nearby hospital, and a robust curriculum has shown me that not only is this possible – it’s necessary. I am more motivated than ever to be a doctor, and I know the rest of my time at SLU will both prepare me and light a fire underneath me to accomplish this goal.