We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I don't know what practicing clinician has time to write guidelines for other docs, but guidelines are nothing but trouble. The best medical care is both art and science. Knowledge is always incomplete, patients are individuals with unique situations, and all docs have their own preferences and points of view. Guidelines end up being little more than fodder for tort lawyers and time-wasters.
Worst of all, young docs feel as if they have to follow them. Many things go wrong when practicing by the book. Medicine is an art and a science.
Guidelines seem to serve two purposes; they keep the young and/or inexperienced from re-inventing the wheel and they help to idiot proof procedures in some fields. Again I say help to. Beyond that, I agree they are a waste of time for the experienced.
Don't forget that the people who graduated dead last in medical school get called "Doctor", too.
Guidelines can be helpful for a lot of things, but in no way are they better than a good doctor. The question is, what percentage of people who get called "Doctor" are good doctors? In my experience that proportion is significant...