You -might- have a slightly higher proportion of “bad ones,” but you would also have a system with less of a capacity shortage. In turn, the harms from lesser practitioners would likely be less, and you could more readily suspend for misconduct.

Some of those we consider bad ones might even be considerably better under a little less time pressure.

Interesting. The harm that a doctor can do is very serious though. Who are the unlucky shlubs who get the bad end of the distribution?

Not having sufficient care can do some pretty serious harm. It's not like all the new doctors we'll be adding will be worse than the existing set.

Taking your argument to the extreme: if we have no doctors, they can't do any harm. Is that best? Or, we could get rid of 20% of doctors and avoid getting rid of the best, which would improve the quality of the distribution. Would that be better?

> But won’t you have more bad ones?

You absolutely will. People should be extremely careful what they wish for. Simplistic solutions like "just train more doctors" can and will have disastrous unforeseen consequences.