> I just don't like doctors.

Why? They're there to keep you healthy. Yeah, sure it can be uncomfortable talking to a doctor about personal health issues, but it's better than waiting until it's too late and finding out that "if only you'd come sooner, we could have helped".

Our understanding of the human body is very rudimentary. Basically doctors are people who memorized a bunch of questionable info and try to guess what to do. Give people in that situation access to highly concentrated chemicals and extremely sharp objects (eg scalpels and syringes) and you really shouldn't expect much.

Like Feynman said though, if you are deathly ill in the jungle you would rather go see a witchdoctor than some random person. At least they will have some experience caring for the sick.

So do you stand by your words? Do you have a a Do Not Resuscitate order? Would you reject emergency surgery after being shot?

>"So do you stand by your words?" - Yes

>"Do you have a a Do Not Resuscitate order?" - No

>"Would you reject emergency surgery after being shot?" - No

I suspect the real problem here is with your reading comprehension though.

> They're there to keep you healthy.

This is probably the issue under contention. I don't like doctors either (or really the entire medical establishment). Some part of that is a belief that they aren't in fact there to keep you healthy. No I'm not trying to argue something like profit motives or whatever driving an unethical effort to make you dependent instead of healthy, or say doctors shouldn't exist, or that I wouldn't go to one if I thought I needed medical care, just that I don't like doctors or the systems and methods they operate under (some by force). nonbel unpacks one aspect of the dislike, The Elephant in the Brain unpacks another aspect (e.g. by the finding that people who receive free healthcare consume a lot more medicine but aren't any healthier, which wasn't actually surprising for me to hear!), and there are other aspects for my dislike too.

Mostly this. I think most doctors mean well but but when you go looking for problems that you are trained to find you usually find something, and medicine is so defensive these days due to malpractice litigation that nothing even slightly anomalous is ever ignored.

> medicine is so defensive these days due to malpractice litigation

Is there any evidence of this? I've seen malpractice litigation similarly cited as one of the reasons behind the the high cost of health care in the US (which is also frequently disputed [1])

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/upshot/malpractice-reform...

They can do harm too. In my personal experience, they have caused much more harm than good. Not saying that for everyone, but ymmv with doctors.

My dad is dying from a 20 cm tumour right now. He has insurance but put up with the pain of a growing mass in his pancreas and stomach for months because he didn't like going to the doctor. Had we picked it up early, they could have operated and put him on immunotherapy.

Please, go to the doctor early and regularly. It's not worth it, trust me.

> "Had we picked it up early, they could have operated and put him on immunotherapy."

Your story could be helpful to others. According to the doctors:

1) What is the years survived estimate of this vs doing nothing in your fathers situation (age, stage, etc)?

2) What are the side effects (and in general the quality of life) after/during this treatment vs doing nothing?

Also, these should both be some sort of histograms or at least ranges.

My grandfather was born in the 1890's in what was then called Indian Territory (aka Oklahoma). He refused to go to the doctor for his entire life. He had a heart attack at ~70 and died a week later in the hospital. No procedures, drugs, waiting rooms, or paper work. I really admire that approach.