My assumption was that we have to be our own advocate because the system itself is non-ideal.

My takeaway: if bloodwork were broader, covered more markers, there would be one less reason to have to advocate for your own health.

I find it odd that you would instead "advocate" for not being an advocate for your own health? Are we waiting for a friend to say, "Hey, you're looking a little rough."

> Are we waiting for a friend to say, "Hey, you're looking a little rough."

If you are "looking rough", unless you are in imminent danger you should just go to the GP. Your GP is there to triage care. He'll recommend whether you need something prescribed from the pharmacy, a blood test or see a specialist.

If you get refered to a specialist, the hospital will try to ascertain if you need a really experienced specialist or if you have a relatively simple case that can be handled by one with, say, 11 years experience. If he decides the case is too complex, he can ask the more experienced specialist to preside.

If you short-circuit that and demand to be seen by the most experienced specialist, you are robbing a patient that might need that experienced hand of extremely valuable care, when you could have done with less. Like I said, egotistical.

> My takeaway: if bloodwork were broader, covered more markers, there would be one less reason to have to advocate for your own health.

Blood work needs lab workers who also have limited time. They could indeed do 10 tests but that means more labs and more lab workers which increases costs, which are already exploding. Better tests would be good.

Behaving like docile, compliant cattle benefits only the farmer.

Perhaps you could feed the cattle with your strawman instead.

Yeah insisting that you are qualified to choose the members of the medical staff qualified to do X or Y procedure isn't advocating, it's being a prick.