I don’t agree at all with your interpretation of the Doctor story. The Hansonian analysis (on a societal level, Medicine is not about Health, or whatever) is one thing. But for (ill) individuals, the situation is entirely different.
Any time a doctor assuages your health worries, when you actually had a real problem and therefore should have been an appropriate amount of worried, that doctor is causing significant harm: you likely delay proper care, sometimes past the point when it could’ve been most useful; and you successively lose trust in their profession and expertise.
I’ve had multiple such experiences, and now I have to second-guess during each doctor’s appointment. That kind of defeats the point of going to an expert for one’s health problems!
I would understand your perspective if you assumed that, for every ill patient at a doctor’s office, there are a thousand patients who are healthy but neurotic. I agree that neuroticism correlates with thinking one is ill, and going to the doctor. But you know what else correlates with that? Being ill, and hence requiring an actual diagnosis, not platitudes.
In the real world I agree the doctor not checking physical reality is quite bad. The difference is that in Scott’s story by assumption things are such that checking would cause more trouble than it is worth. And while you actually seek real information, many are seeking something else. It’s not trivial but I do think Hansonian medicine largely does apply.
Ah, maybe the reason we interpreted Scott’s Doctor scenario differently is that I read it as much less hypothetical than you did.
There’s also a potential cultural difference here—I’m from Germany, and maybe doctors from the US vs. Germany differ in the extent to which they overprescribe vs. underprescribe medical care.
I don’t agree at all with your interpretation of the Doctor story. The Hansonian analysis (on a societal level, Medicine is not about Health, or whatever) is one thing. But for (ill) individuals, the situation is entirely different.
Any time a doctor assuages your health worries, when you actually had a real problem and therefore should have been an appropriate amount of worried, that doctor is causing significant harm: you likely delay proper care, sometimes past the point when it could’ve been most useful; and you successively lose trust in their profession and expertise.
I’ve had multiple such experiences, and now I have to second-guess during each doctor’s appointment. That kind of defeats the point of going to an expert for one’s health problems!
I would understand your perspective if you assumed that, for every ill patient at a doctor’s office, there are a thousand patients who are healthy but neurotic. I agree that neuroticism correlates with thinking one is ill, and going to the doctor. But you know what else correlates with that? Being ill, and hence requiring an actual diagnosis, not platitudes.
In the real world I agree the doctor not checking physical reality is quite bad. The difference is that in Scott’s story by assumption things are such that checking would cause more trouble than it is worth. And while you actually seek real information, many are seeking something else. It’s not trivial but I do think Hansonian medicine largely does apply.
Ah, maybe the reason we interpreted Scott’s Doctor scenario differently is that I read it as much less hypothetical than you did.
There’s also a potential cultural difference here—I’m from Germany, and maybe doctors from the US vs. Germany differ in the extent to which they overprescribe vs. underprescribe medical care.