I think you are absolutely correct, statistics of course apply to individuals (the opposite has always struck me as nonsense), but I think you have erred in using this quote as the central rubric by which to parse the diagnosis debate–and thus oversimplified something much more complex. In a sense, the statistics/individual quote is a reformulation of the universal/particular problem. And if you know much about that (as I assume you do), you know that this problem is much trickier than your resolution allows (i.e., a mere choice of universal over particular)–whether in the case of medical diagnosis or whatever.

In my opinion, the resolution here is much more nuanced. First, to agree with your excellent point on subjective diagnoses, yes, there should be a much greater reliance on statistical guidelines within the specific areas in which diagnosis is prone toward subjective motivations (e.g., ADHD; fibromy.; depression; psychopathology generally). However, in the sphere of life-threatening diseases (e.g., oncology; infectious dis.; cardiology; etc.), reliance on mere statistics for diagnosis would be terribly foolish (even if feasible, which seems inconceivable). Sure, statistics are a good first sweep to get all the clear “postives”; but then you must move on to the more difficult, borderline cases (the testing ground of great doctors).

In fact, I would go so far to say that in the latter cases (i.e., those of serious disease) no one–not even you–really want specialists relying on some statistical chart for symptoms and test-results. For, if so, when you or a loved one became seriously ill and no diagnosis was immediately forthcoming to the local GP, you would go week out another just-the-statistics-mam doctor. But that is precisely the person you do not seek (indeed, that is precisely the person who has already failed). No, then, you take them to the “one-of-the-top-guys-in-the-field” sort of doctor–i.e., the person who can see beyond the statistics everyone knows, who knows more than the satistics, who knows the complexity of disease and the nuance of the human body.

So, yes, we can treat everybody who fits the statistical bill–and we should. The point is that the truly great doctors are the ones who, through extensive experience and a unique talent to synthesize data, can find the people and fix the problems that fall outside the statistical parameters (often 30% of all afflicted with the given disease). And that is the doctor you–all of us–really want to go to. Which is to say that, in the end, when there’s a serious problem, we want a doctor who can see far beyond the statistics–who, in other words, has a firm grasp of the universals to be sure, but also recognizes the essential particularity of each invidiual.

(And, no, I’m not a doctor, though I do come from a family of physicians.)