In the Hippocratic-Oath, the difference is there, a physician vs. a surgeon. Even if they may fit fine, they do not have to (e.g: for an eye). Why must everybody, learn both?
The (large) medical-school, is an example of the big-bad education-sytem - although it may have the advantage that, it is in a relatively-later phase (university), and it may gather relatively high-achiever students. Otherwise, it is again what you know.
After I myself had pointed out that, the rise of the modern-medicine is probably more the rise of the exchange of information, I was not probably expected to target the medium-of-exchange. But, Latin is not functional, really. It is an old concept, which turned wrong, in time. It is not the economy, that way. Not that way!
The WWW, the web, is very well-known. Any article may refer to any term, with a web-link (with, or without smart-tags, it is very straightforward). Even if an article is to get published in paper, its online-version (available through www, or ftp), may embed every term-linkage information. Then, any interested reader, may look-up any term, through that page (the digital-replica of the printed-paper).
If that is an ego-problem, for example, the English and the French would not want to use terminology, from "that other language," the mapper-dictionary is even automatizable (the way a web-page may know, in what language it is viewed).
I do not expect the med-ed people, would waste their time&energy, to learn (probably, an insufficient) Latin. (Some may lecture totally in Latin, too, if they wish.)
The rest of your life, is probably late for a reversal, after an expertise-degree is obtained. A nurse is a nurse. A doctor is a doctor. They have their hierarchies, and even within themselves, they may keep up-to-date, mostly with their limited subfields.
In most cases, the later phases of an education, may leave little or no way out, even if the person would want it. That is probably even more pronounced for a medical-student. That would mean extra-money (more loans), and/or new applications to new departments. And all of this is only about a big-jump to some other big-category. You may run away out of psychiatry, but what makes neurology "exactly the field that you wanted, with all-and-only the right content?"
When that expert cannot change his/her field (or, subfield), it is an ongoing question, whether he/she is really satisfied with it, or only stuck with it? Does he/she feel to improve, keep up-to-date, and even contribute to the field? Or, exactly vice versa? How may we avoid those who feel only cornered by their bad-luck?
With formaze, and a med-ed model, nobody is cornered. Any time, is the right time to redefine your expertise, or to refresh it with up-to-date knowledge - and exactly with the regular way of it. i.e: It is not only "an irregular grannie," or two, who may want to do sth. new. A favorite newspaper feature "Attends a university, after 70 years of age." is no news at all, with formaze. Any people who are able to watch a TV documentary, may formaze, readily - little-by-little. With the old education-system, any major education would mean an allocation of several (consecutive) years, anew. That was the feat. i.e: The newspapers herald the cases of those people who do not accept defeat, despite such an obstacle. No such obstacle with formaze.
How may tell who is (really) an expert, as opposed to who is simply cornered, at a field of medicine (with a degree)?