Giving insulin to a person who is dying because of lack of insulin is not a "solution"?
If you have to give him insulin again tomorrow and the next day, you have not solved the problem, merely temporized. Not that there's no value in temporizing, mind you, but the condition still exists so the problem hasn't been solved. If you have an ER patient with a dreadful headache and you give him painkillers, have you solved the problem? Certainly not if his headache is from a sinus infection or a brain tumor. Arguably not even if the headache is a one-off event of unknown cause. If he has a hangover and you give him meds for the pain, and give him a lecture that causes him to never drink again, then you've solved the problem. (Conversely, if the patient presents with a cold, the physician does whatever he does, and the cold goes away, the physician can't be said to have solved the problem, either because the cold would have gone away on its own.)
I think there's a difference between solving the problem and successfully treating the patient. I think that's the distinction being made. Medicine can't always solve the problem and shouldn't be expected to. Success for the physician would be to provide the best available care. Sometimes that results in solving the problem, sometimes not. |
