[Tostino]

I'd say it is quite different than the usual doctor patient relationship. Wildly different in fact.

In the usual case, the doctor is working on behalf of the patient and is optimizing for the best outcome for them.

In this case, the doctor is is potentially attempting to optimize for the system as a whole. Why should the doctor I'm paying for have the incentive to not care about the outcome for me?

[threatofrain]

It's not wildly different. You have this assumption of doctors that is not secured by the structure of incentives, so where does your confidence in this assumption come from? We just had a discussion¹ on HN a few days ago about routine unnecessary dental procedures. When a professional recommends that you get a root canal, how is that not coercion under this perspective? Whether we're talking about euthanasia or organ transplants or plastic surgery, to what degree is the doctor on your side? How do you know?

Ofc the above discussion is about asymmetry of information and the structure of incentives. Let's also try another idea. What if professionals don't try to push you in any particular direction and instead just dump information on you?

Oh, you're getting sued? Here's some case law. But what should I do with this case law? Should I countersue? How should I defend? Well, maybe you want to do this, in the past some clients have done this, but some clients have also done something else. Whatever choice you make I'll support you all the way.

People pay for strong persuasion. In other words, people pay for the professional to take over decision making. If that's the case, then professional trust and the structure of incentives are the only factors left in play. If the professional tries to play with a light hand and just throws facts at people without putting their thumb on the scale, in some sense they're dumping some of their responsibility back onto the client.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41842294