One interesting thing to try to find is... during approximately what decade did "modern medicine" become a net benefit to health and longevity? The most common answers I've seen vary from the 1950s to we're not even 100% sure it's a net benefit now.
I think life expectancy started climbing up from 1850s, but it's hard to say which part of that is "medicine" and which is better nutrition and hygiene.
What number of people who got medical care would've lived/recovered without it? My point is not that I know the answer to when medical care became a net benefit, my point is that it's an extremely complicated thing that there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to.
Sure, and I'd love to read good research on the topic. But I think there's a reasonable assumption that our verifiably increased understanding of the human body has led to some net benefit, no?
I'll probably look at some reviews on modern medicine statistics, it's an interesting question. While I have no doubt we've made net progress, I wonder if some specific areas of medicine haven't.
Every generation throughout history believed it was a reasonable assumption that their state-of-the-art medical care was a net benefit. We're no different in that regard. This is a matter of faith, not hard fact. Intuitively this feels like a "simple question of fact" that I should be able to google and find in seconds. But it's a real brain scratcher. I love questions like that.
I'd still attribute hygiene improvements to medical science though, since it depended on scientific research into improved hygiene practices, as well as the adoption of e.g. germ theory.
Is it arguable that it wasn't a net benefit? You can argue specific cases maybe, but survival rates for the vast majority of diseases are better, longevity increased, and outcomes better for chronic illnesses.
