A doctor whose patients always leave with a bag of drugs is likely not a competent doctor. The statistical chances of every patient having something in need of medication is slim.

Who says you can't discuss options openly with doctor B?

> Who says you can't discuss options openly with doctor B?

Exactly. In my case doctor B once took 30min to explain something I didn't understand, he also grabbed some books for it.. without charging me. One part is true, I can't certainly know who's better.

> Who says you can't discuss options openly with doctor B?

"doctor B will not give you anything more than you need, even if you ask for it" says that by implication: doctor B seems not to be open to ideas other than his own. That's (personally) not what I would prefer in a doctor.

You want a doctor who defers to your judgment as a non-doctor?

Yes, exactly, I want a doctor who defers to my judgment.

I'm a scientist with significant relevant training.

I know more about my own medical history than any doctor I've met. (it may help to understand that locally that we don't have 'family' doctors and are assigned whichever general practitioner is available to bring the notes up on the screen)

I also confident that I'm a far better judge of my own risk and utility profiles than a doctor is. Who is the best person to decide which of a choice of treatments is right, given the costs and benefits? I believe a doctor shouldn't be (unilaterally) deciding that for me.

Even if those things did not apply to me, I would still want a doctor to advise me and then respect my judgment.

> I'm a scientist with significant relevant training.

That's nice and all, but most people aren't.

This is a little like saying because you're a theoretical nuclear physicist that you should be able to run a nuclear reactor - and so should any random yahoo off the street.

I believe I had already expressed that this was my personal preference.

If you scratch that line and read the rest, my other points would apply generally.

We aspire to give people personal choice in their lives. People have the choice to drink or smoke or get obese or even break the law and risk the consequences. People should have that personal choice in their medical treatment as well.

It's a matter of respect for patients.

> People have the choice to drink or smoke or get obese or even break the law and risk the consequences.

Well, if that counts, you have the choice to forge a prescription or break into a pharmacy to self-medicate.

That doesn't preclude an open discussion of the options.

"I'd like antibiotics."

"Sorry, but we don't prescribe them for colds. Here's why."

Perhaps because I am unable to role-play myself into this situation, I understood something stronger from the original comment.

not being open to the patient's own ideas != not being open to ideas other than his own

If that's your point of view then you are not part of the same argument as the grandparent commenter - we are talking about a doctor communicating with a patient. As such, you may infer that I'm talking about doctor-patient communication.

Go up a level if you would like to try again.