Re: "never ever broken a rule, even one totally unrelated to their profession"
"Contrary to what a lot of people commenting here think, it's not medical knowledge that's the clincher. A doctor who doesn't understand what's wrong with you can still be brilliant if they acknowledge that they don't know and so defer to another doctor. The big problem you run into with doctors -- the problem that can kill you all too quickly -- is arrogance."
It isn't just doctors - anyone you deal with that is confident enough to say "I don't know, but I do know how to find out" is worth their weight in gold, whether it is your local shopkeeper or a professional. The problem is, as I was once seriously asked by a surgeon, "If I'm going to be cutting you open and rummaging about in your insides, do you want me to come into the room with confidence bordering on arrogance or do you want me to tell you all the times I've had things go awry?" The point is, most of us want the people with our lives in their hands to appear more godlike than human. However, a little humility helps to temper that - the surgeon that failed to act appropriately to save my father's life was retired early as a result of our complaint about his offhand manner when we praised the care but asked why he wasn't transferred to the local centre of excellence. Had he said "I made a mistake" he wouldn't have triggered he investigation that showed he had not followed best practice in his treatment ...
"When they're not sure what's wrong with you but would never admit that, when they're sure that their years of experience mean they can just tell what's wrong with you and so they don't need no stinking tests, when they don't listen to their patients because they know better than some unqualified hypochondriac pleb, when, in short, they are convinced of their own brilliance: that's when you need to get the hell out and find another doctor, urgently. Not that you always have that option. Read the headlines: this is what a large proportion of malpractice and wrongful death cases boil down to. "My husband had brain cancer but his doctor told him to take an aspirin.""
Yes, but the medical training system leads to this. The concept of the differential diagnosis, which essentially places a premium on the most probable cause for any given symptoms, means that an atypical presentation will not necessarily lead to a correct diagnosis. The only option is to send anyone that complains of e.g. recurrent headaches immediately for a brain scan (which might not pick up the problem anyway), instead of suggesting that a trip to the optician is a good idea (which is more likely to pick up the problem).
"Speak to people who go see alternative quacks instead of doctors: they're not all just delusional; plenty of them avoid conventional medicine because they've learnt the hard way that its practitioners are not to be trusted."
We have a difference of opinion about the level of delusion of people that go to unlicenced, unregulated, and/or openly fraudulent "alternative" practitioners. The only way they might be considered to be better off is that they possibly don't risk side-effects from non-active substances. What these doctors have done is make the best available information easy to access for practitioners, thus making it less, rather than more, likely that mistakes will occur. Otherwise, people believing in "woo-medicine" are totally delusional.
"For me, this plagiarism is indicative of arrogance; of contempt for rules and a readiness to lie."
To be fair, my fairly extensive experience of doctors is that they think plagiarism is restricted to cheating in exams. Copyright means as little to them as it does to the average person that downloads music from unofficial sources. You are holding them to higher level of knowledge than they have. That the authors and publisher of the book didn't think of this shows greed and untrustworthiness that concern me far more than the actions of the people that wrote the app.
"But it does depend. 35 in a 30 zone? Who cares? 60 in a 30 zone? Yes, strike the bastard off."
No, it depends on a lot more - had he taken account of all considerations? What was the time and what were the road conditions? Why was he speeding? Was there an emergency situation? 60 in a 30 zone in a heavily built up area with children crossing the road to go to school isn't ever safe (despite the way some of the plod drive when it suits them), but it might be at 4am. Context is all.