I sometimes feel people overestimate the ability of doctors as a final decision maker. I used to make voting software for a large medical conference, and spent

I sometimes feel people overestimate the ability of doctors as a final decision maker. I used to make voting software for a large medical conference, and spent over a decade or so attending these events. Doctors would often present two (nearly) identical scenarios, i.e. a severe condition a patient has, and then proceed to try two different approaches in treatment. The follow-ups on this are presented at these conferences, to educate others and continue figuring out which procedures may be better in certain scenarios. The most shocking part about this all, to me, was the fact that they often just have their "own opinion" about the best treatment, only to get lectured (if not roasted) shortly after (in the Q&As) about why the method was long outdated, or not a good choice because of the patient showing X, Y and Z, etc. — all while two photos are up on the projector, of two children, one with "less than ideal results" and one with "perfect recovery" — two stories that could have been identical, but weren't, because we humans need to experiment and figure things out, slowly. And two other doctors present afterwards, doing the exact same thing, slightly differently, and thanking the first person about sharing it so they can also try it next time. Long story short - it felt SUPER ancient and error prone, at the cost of human life (and quality of life), and I often found myself thinking about what would be possible if we could let computers work with collective data and suggest based on probability rather than "winging it based on an (educated) hunch" the doctor has, just to have something to present next year. Side note: they were all absolute experts in their fields, of course, I am painting this a bit more black than it may be, but I remain quite shocked when I learned how doctors come to decision making in medical procedures.