To: i-node who wrote (18736 ) 8/10/2010 6:08:48 PM From: Lane3 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652 "The physician didn't cure the patient therefore he failed" or "therefore, he didn't solve the problem". You're the one attaching "he failed" to "didn't solve the problem." I didn't see that in dybdahl's comments. He started out making the point that the body is pretty good at solving many of its own problems and the the physician is redundant or can even be detrimental. finding the best solution from the set of feasible solutions, and that's about all we can expect from a physician. Concur. The physician is there to help the patient, whatever form that takes.The context of the original post was suggestive that physicians are an "active" component of the "solution" (whatever that happens to be) perhaps 10% of the time. If you define "solve the problem" as curing the patient of something that would have negatively persisted without intervention, that would seem a bit skimpy but not by all that much IMO. If you're talking about simply helping the patient, then the number would likely exceed fifty percent. [My father eschewed doctors. ( Arguably, doctors "killed" both his parents.) He was taken to the ER once after a traffic accident where he was told the lump in his belly was not of concern. And it apparently wasn't. It was still there when he died. The next time he saw a doctor he was around ninety and drove to the ER because he couldn't urinate. He died at 94 of prostate cancer. He had a fierce cough all his life, lungs full of asbestos and Camels, and a belly the size of the incipient mother of triplets, symptoms that would have sent most looking for medical care. His diet was horrible. There's no way to know if he would have been better off had he frequented doctors. Probably not, as it turned out. He sure was a cheap date.]