> They still do not know what it is worth, because they have no idea what the risks of not being treated are.I disagree; I think that in most cases patients do have a reasonable idea of the risks of not being treated. Where I think risk information is often not communicated very well to patients is in the risks of being treated--what the actual success rate of the treatment being proposed is. That is because in our non-free-market system, doctors have a strong incentive not to let patients know what their actual success rates are, and there is nothing that can counterbalance that. In a free market, they might still not want to, but they would have no choice, because that information is valuable enough to patients that if doctors don't provide it, someone else will. (Other parties try to do that even in our current system, but they are limited in what they can do by legal restrictions imposed by the government.)
> [Doctors] are the only person in the decision making process with the information necessary to make a rational recommendation
I disagree with this as well. My experience with doctors has been that I usually know more than they do about my particular condition. (My wife, who has several chronic conditions, has had this experience even more strongly than I have.) I may have less overall knowledge of all medical conditions in general, but that's because I don't treat any patients other than myself, while they have to treat lots of them. But I have a strong incentive to learn about my particular condition that my doctor does not have, and that usually beats the doctor's general knowledge.