The idea that doctors aren't constantly "off base" and must be deferred to uncritically is pretty terrible.
For example, it took literally two decades after it became well known that peptic ulcers were mostly caused by bacteria for the medical community to embrace giving anti-biotics for GI pain. To this day, there are still many American doctors who don't actually know about the Nobel Prize given in 2000 for this discovery, and claim it's "stress" and tell you to go home. Some claim they "know" but than try to "change your gut PH" and still refuse to give antibiotics due to "superbug" risk.
This is a "small" thing (GI pain is not small to those who have it) - but if the doctors are screwing up such a small thing institutionally, what else do they mess up on?
One is travelers sickness. Doctors in the USA do not want to perscribe front line antibiotics for it because of fear of superbugs - but they'll uncritically go eat their lunch at a McDonalds that same day, where they consume meat bathed in antibiotic slop which is more likely to contribute to superbugs then the amoxicillin that they didn't give you would have.
Or what about right now, when it's become clear that Ozempic is literally a super-drug. Every doctor on earth should be trying to give that stuff to literally anyone.
I can go to "third world countries" with deregulated health systems and get infinitely better care that I have real control over for on the orders of 1 USD (that's how much it cost for me in Thailand to get front line antibiotics for travelers sickness INCLUDING THE DOCTORS VISIT!)
Why do we still sell Neosporin despite doctors wanting it off the market (also for risk of superbugs)? Why do few people in America use Providone-iodine for wound treatment despite it being by far the best solution scientifically for it (and it stains yellow)? Maybe it's because we're stupid. There really aren't better explanations.
What about Circumcision? I'd straight up put doctors who do it in jail and many European nations would do the same. American doctors think circumcision is just fine, and long, deeply bitter swaths of medical ethics journals are dedicated to fighting over this again and again.
Or what about the widespread disagreement over even basic stuff like digital rectal exams? There's no agreement on if they are worth it because often sticking one's hand up the butt of an old man does more damage to them than finding out that they (like everyone else at old age) have benign prostate cancer?
Doctors in America have not earned their position of deference. The scientifically minded on HN who do their own research can and often do know how to treat certain conditions better than white-coats.