I find that there is a layer still of old-school doctors -- caring perhaps, but dictatorial overall, and refuse to be questioned. Individual differences or the idea that a patient may come to them with some level of intelligence and/or self-awareness just doesn't feature in their view of the world. Patronizing and myopic to the point of dangerous are other descriptors that come to mind. A couple of examples (I have several more, but I'll restrain myself):
My father had a stroke. He hated the medication he was being given -- his head felt confused enough already, he said, and he wanted to try alternative therapies. A naturopath suggested ginko biloba, and, though I'd read that it could be helpful for stroke victims, I encouraged him to ask his GP about possible interactions, etc. His GP said that this stuff was all just mumbo-jumbo, but that it wouldn't hurt him so go ahead and take whatever he liked. Dad's stroke was hemorrhagic and ginko is a blood thinner. Thankfully he had a few doctors/specialists that he was seeing, most of whom kept their knowledge up-to-date.
A friend suffered a head injury such that she fell unconscious and was taken to hospital. She was discharged five days later with a diagnosis of hysteria and it went into her chart that she was being obstructive to her care. They didn't seem to worry about the fact that she was still vomiting, aphasic (thankfully temporarily), a walked like a drunken sailor. The obstructive bit came in because she was unwilling to sign forms that she could make no sense of (tough questions like: Do you have any metal in your body? she couldn't understand). No cognitive check, no MRI, no follow-up plan. I am astounded at the state of our medical community.
One person out of how many have you seen in your years of therapy, etc says you're making it all up because you don't fit into his view of what people struggling with anxiety and depression should be like and what treatment they should respond to? I know that I'm simplifying it and there were no doubt other things that brought him to this conclusion, but it really doesn't seem to me as though he merits much credibility. I'd consider what he said, as there may be some kernels of truth somewhere in it, but please do put it into balance with what every other