3 ms·

Hmm, I think I disagree. It was pretty obvious to me that when they used the term "good doctor" they meant better by some objective criteria that many people u

Hmm, I think I disagree. It was pretty obvious to me that when they used the term "good doctor" they meant better by some objective criteria that many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients". If "good doctor" had meant "doctor whose actions benefit patients" it would be a contradiction that most would-be readers could dismiss.

pdonis 11y ago
> It was pretty obvious to me that when they used the term "good doctor" they meant better by some objective criteria that many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients". But those doctors aren't better by those objective criteria [1]; that's the whole point. Their patients do worse, on average, by objective criteria. So they aren't "good doctors" in the sense that patients care about. They are only "good doctors" if you equate "good doctors" with "senior doctors" or something like that (as gdulli pointed out upthread, "famous", the term I used in my OP in this thread, is too narrow)--something which does not include the objective criteria about actual patient outcomes. [1] At least, that's what the article is claiming. As others in this subthread have pointed out, there is other data that should be looked at to see how valid the claim actually is.
- JamesBarney 11y ago
  The objective criteria that the study uses to separate doctors into "good"(as it is used in the title) and bad was "goes to cardiologist conferences". The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference. And this is supposed to be the "objective criteria" that, in your words, many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients"? That makes no sense to me; I doubt most people even know what conferences, if any, their cardiologist (or any other doctor) goes to. Nor do I see the article claiming that "attending conferences" is an objective criterion that patients use.

pdonis 11y ago

> It was pretty obvious to me that when they used the term "good doctor" they meant better by some objective criteria that many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients". But those doctors aren't better by those objective criteria [1]; that's the whole point. Their patients do worse, on average, by objective criteria. So they aren't "good doctors" in the sense that patients care about. They are only "good doctors" if you equate "good doctors" with "senior doctors" or something like that (as gdulli pointed out upthread, "famous", the term I used in my OP in this thread, is too narrow)--something which does not include the objective criteria about actual patient outcomes. [1] At least, that's what the article is claiming. As others in this subthread have pointed out, there is other data that should be looked at to see how valid the claim actually is.

JamesBarney 11y ago
The objective criteria that the study uses to separate doctors into "good"(as it is used in the title) and bad was "goes to cardiologist conferences". The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference. And this is supposed to be the "objective criteria" that, in your words, many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients"? That makes no sense to me; I doubt most people even know what conferences, if any, their cardiologist (or any other doctor) goes to. Nor do I see the article claiming that "attending conferences" is an objective criterion that patients use.