A physician or medical provider…
Should not give you a 100% guarantee that a treatment or surgery will cure everything and that there are no risks or side effects. Most stable-minding, ethical providers will debrief you mostly on the risks and will discuss alternative treatments, and anyone who will render services like injections or surgery without evaluating you physically should be avoided (not counting emergency surgery services from ED or Urgent Care/Urgent Surgery). When you’re discussing treatment with your provider there should be a conservative and an invasive treatment option, and the pros and cons of each should be reviewed extensively.
Why am I bringing this up? We’re watching the Dr. Echland segment on “60 Minutes” and I want to give an insider (within administration)’s perspective of what a legitimate medical document should be. There should not be phrases like “medical miracle” or over-embellished guarantees of successful treatment; if there are then you should have a medical professional you trust review the paperwork.
There are exceptions like in cases of infection beyond antibiotics that requires amputation and other similar extreme cases, but TYPICALLY no provider will tell you “yes, this is your only option and I guarantee it’ll be the best”. We’re talking about medicine not Men’s Wearhouse. If you feel a provider is bullying you into a treatment, you have the right to say “no” and seek another opinion.
Last note, if a provider trying to give you an experimental intervention does not have clinical practice and no laboratory or research experience with that [treatment], but tries to excuse their lack of practice with it by saying “I’ve read articles about it!”, then you should call the state medical board on that provider and run away.