There are several significant points that Timmermans and Berg make in The Gold Standard. First of all, it is important to realize and understand the implications of standardization. They show how standardization leads to a more unified field thus creating a profession. This was discussed in chapter one in regards to the standardizing of patient records. Doctors used to simply jot down notes about their patients in their own personal notebooks. Over time, standards were implemented that required patient records to be kept at their bedside. Along with these changes came specialized doctors, so patients would sometimes see multiple doctors. These records were important so all the doctors attending to an individual were one the same page and knew the same information. Today, this is seems so logical and hard to imagine a time without a detailed medical record. In regards to medical records, standardization seems like a good thing. We should hope that our doctors know our past medical history when taking care of us. However, they mention some arguments against standardization that state it stifles doctors’ work practices, and drains their creativity. Doctors should follow certain guidelines and standards when diagnosing patients and determining what treatment they should receive. This supports the practice of evidence-based medicine. Doctors should advise patients on the best available methods, which is determined through studies and tests. However, the doctor must always remember to take into consideration the wishes of the patient. In regards to the claim that standardization drains the doctor’s creativity, I believe the doctor still needs to be creative in his diagnosis. This argument relates to the other discussions we have had in class as to what makes a good doctor, and especially to How Doctors Think. Doctors still need to take creativity into account when diagnosing a patient, since every case is individual.