[jhrmnn]

Science is built on deference to authority. You cannot possibly derive all known physics laws yourself, or verify all the known biology yourself. You have to trust to a certain degree all the scientists that came before you, collectively. You can question some bits here and there but you don’t have time to question everything. The doctors cannot possibly evaluate all the arguments brought in by patients, they don’t have time or even expertise to do that. But they can trust (to a certain degree) a peer-reviewed article.

[nomel]

And, related, “ A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Planck

[deltaonetwo]

I would say the logical thing to do for the doctor is Not to trust the patient peer until AFTER the doctor has actually read the article himself. The problem here is the doctor will likely trust the patient without ever reading the article.

There has to be some degree of verification regardless of how complex the world is. At the very least he should read the paper. Because not doing so is hypocritical. Doctors treat patients as dimwitted idiots but suddenly the patient is smart because he has a paper? No, you can't make that judgement unless you read the paper.