Yes, this is a difficult decision - if conflicting treatment advice is provided by the two doctors, how do you decide between them? It's not necessarily the case that the second doctor is correct.
Of course, if additional tests are done by the second doctor and new information is uncovered, that helps.
My ex-wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and the first doctor said that urgent surgery was needed and both thyroids need to be removed.
She obtained a second opinion from a well-known oncologist, who said that only part of one thyroid needs to be removed, and it wasn't so urgent.
Because everyone wanted to believe the second doctor, that was the option she went for.
This was a very expensive doctor. Shortly after the surgery, he notified her that, in fact, the cancer had spread to both thyroids, and the other one had to urgently be removed as well. This led to double the medical bill, opening up her neck twice, and all the accompanying inconvenience of two surgeries.
It was a strange situation where an incorrect assessment by the doctor directly led to that doctor making more money.
Also, it highlights the tough decision in terms of how you decide between two conflicting opinions if there are no additional diagnostic results to assist.
There is only one thyroid ... presumably you're referring to the two lobes.
There are generally clear discriminators determining whether a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy is called for. What is missing here is the detailed discussion with the two doctors of exactly why they were recommending their course of action and what attempts were made to reach consensus. "everyone wanted to believe" is not the way to go about such things ... but there's a good chance that the evidence favored the less radical course. A lobectomy has considerably less radical consequences and so is strongly preferred if a total thyroidectomy isn't indicated. But it's not uncommon for the pathology report of the removed lobe to indicate high-risk features that call for a "completion thyroidectomy", which is what your ex-wife had. It's not some nefarious conspiracy to make more money.
Thank you for the corrections and clarifications. It does still support the point that it can be hard for a layperson to make a call on which opiniom to adopt.
With "everyone wanted to believe" I was referring to the patient and family.
It was (is) difficult to get appointments with these doctors as they are fully booked months in advance and there was no opportunity to consult with them again or get them to discuss the case with one another. Hence the decision had to be made with the information that could be remembered from the consultations. (These days I always record all doctor's consultations for future referral, as memory / recall is of course notoriously bad.)
I recently had a similar experience where it became very clear that the lawyers were using AI to draft the agreements. Though it was very accurate and pedantic on some matters, it got other things completely wrong because it was not provided with full context, and full context is very difficult to provide.
The lawyers did not properly review the agreements, causing post-signature discovery of major issues and having to redo and execute all the agreements a second time, leading to inflated lawyer bills.
If the lawyer is going to prompt the same AI that I can prompt myself and is not going to review the agreements thoroughly, then it is clear where this is leading.
They surely would if they could, but since they will inevitably use it themselves they would need to collude and make a deal with the AI companies to find some way to keep the public out and law firms in (one example being targeted knee-capping of the free and low price tiers with respect to legal matters).
The ridiculous overcharging thing was something I thought the entire public was well versed in, so the idea that someone could earnestly think that they would get a discount seems absurd to me. As I recall, even the Oscars gift bags given to nominees in one of the years contained a prenup template supposedly crafted by best-in-business (divorce?) lawyers where you just needed to fill in the blanks. If you weren't getting a discount before AI, you are not getting a discount with AI I would presume.
It is understandable to see the moat as the illiteracy of the public regarding the legal system because the concerted effort to keep that illiteracy in place is a disgrace. But when the stakes are high, the moat still is finding a lawyer who knows their shit and one you can hold accountable. Which is why I find the idea of lawyers being dependent on AI much more terrifying.
Of course, if additional tests are done by the second doctor and new information is uncovered, that helps.
My ex-wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and the first doctor said that urgent surgery was needed and both thyroids need to be removed.
She obtained a second opinion from a well-known oncologist, who said that only part of one thyroid needs to be removed, and it wasn't so urgent.
Because everyone wanted to believe the second doctor, that was the option she went for.
This was a very expensive doctor. Shortly after the surgery, he notified her that, in fact, the cancer had spread to both thyroids, and the other one had to urgently be removed as well. This led to double the medical bill, opening up her neck twice, and all the accompanying inconvenience of two surgeries.
It was a strange situation where an incorrect assessment by the doctor directly led to that doctor making more money.
Also, it highlights the tough decision in terms of how you decide between two conflicting opinions if there are no additional diagnostic results to assist.