because not doing it properly is bad properly isnt relying on what was done in the past or the future if it is wrong
if you don't want to be a therapist( this is anyone) have the courage to get out
its a vocation so you'd take the time to do what your conscience tells you not an insurance company, a government; a board of directors, a peer review, the W.H.O ,the local health authority ,nothing but your conscience
Oh....thanks again for clarifying....I think maybe we are talking about different things, and/or I just wasn't clear about what I was talking about....I might still not be clear on what we're talking about (and might still not be communicating clearly)....we might have very different conceptual mappings for stuff too ....
I agree, a doctor should offer their own opinion / make up their own mind, but I think most of them actually do that. And when they defer to others, I think that for most doctors it's because they truly believe that others have more knowledge.
There are lots of bad doctors out there...some even had bad intentions and should never have been allowed to be doctors in the first place, but I choose to believe the ones with bad intentions are the minority, and that most are doing the best they can with good intentions (even if they actually suck at being doctors).
When doctors refuse to have any part in treatments/remedies that are not researched (or not well researched) my thoughts are this:
Doctors take an oath to do no harm, and I assume that to them it seems like doing nothing is safer than doing something that may cause huge amounts of harm -- maybe more harm than is possible with the treatments they do know about. They have no way of knowing.
I think doctors need to be more open to new ideas and prepared to question what they've been taught, but they have to be given enough reasons to do that and they have to be able to access credible alternative information.....doctors usually don't have time to do a lot of their own research beyond what's minimally necessary to keep up with advances in their own field (which, for family doctors/GPs, is sort of everything.....so I don't know how that works for them)....
Nobody can independently do the kinds of research that big organizations like the WHO and drug companies can do -- you need a lot of time and a lot of people and a lot of money (for equipment and physical spaces and to pay all the people you need to help you do the work). If doctors didn't trust any of their colleagues and the research that's out there then what is the alternative? No single person (or even single clinic/research facility) could possibly reproduce all the studies that have been done to arrive at current guidelines .....so they have to just read them and read the sources cited for them and decide whether or not/how much to trust them. They can't start from scratch.
I would be afraid of a doctor who didn't use any research in their practice, or ask for the opinions of others, or who totally dismissed guidelines (that seems as bad as dismissing new, unresearched ideas)..... looking at what other doctors and scientists think is part of doing things properly, in my opinion, unless you are dangerously arrogant.
The official guidelines for nutrition/vitamins aren't black and white -- it's explicitly stated that they are meant to represent what works for most people, not what works for everybody. Doctors should keep that in mind though....a lot of them don't.