> The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference.
And this is supposed to be the "objective criteria" that, in your words, many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients"? That makes no sense to me; I doubt most people even know what conferences, if any, their cardiologist (or any other doctor) goes to. Nor do I see the article claiming that "attending conferences" is an objective criterion that patients use.
And this is supposed to be the "objective criteria" that, in your words, many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients"? That makes no sense to me; I doubt most people even know what conferences, if any, their cardiologist (or any other doctor) goes to. Nor do I see the article claiming that "attending conferences" is an objective criterion that patients use.