Neolib, thanks for the detailed account. Now let me show you where the flaws are in your argument:
1) Self-diagnosing yourself using Wikipedia, WebMD, or whatever is not as reliable as you might think it is. Otherwise why would we ever need (non-specialist) doctors? You may think you have the shingles, but a physician is trained to look for pretty much anything. And even though they are not perfect nor omniscient, I would trust their judgment far more than I would trust my own.
2) Nurses are the front-line soldiers of health care. Sure, in your case the nurse didn't do anything more than take your vitals, but its these vitals that help the doctor confirm that you don't have anything more serious. Once again, you can't just self-diagnose using the Internet and jump to a conclusion, especially when it comes to something as complicated as your own health.
3) The doctor is supposed to listen to your heart and your breathing. He or she is supposed to look in your throat, ear, etc. The doctor is looking for any signs of infection, both visible and audible, but not necessarily that way to the average layperson.
4) Prescriptions are due to regulation, as you already mentioned. The regulations are there to guarantee the safety and the reliability of the drugs in question. Even OTC drugs are subject to extensive regulations, and there is no easy way to streamline the process. (I should know; my wife is a pharmacist, and she is paid very well to know these regulations inside and out.)
In short, your entire argument is based on your assumption that you can use the Internet to be your own doctor, or that eventually the Internet (or some form of AI) will take over the roles that doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and other health care professionals currently employ.
That's a real stretch of the imagination.
Tenchusatsu |
