Guest, LtS may be a bit like me; although I can argue from basic principles I prefer to give (where possible) examples from my own experience.

I'm a bit older than some but not as old as many on this thread and, a year or so ago I went through a spell of nauseous dizziness. I could ascribe no presursor causes and the diagnosis was BPV; age wasn't mentioned as part of the diagnosis. The doctors who see me know that I have enough background to be able to challenge casual comments, demand proper explanation with supporting evidence and be able to understand almost all of it. So they usually give whatever's on their mind "straight".

I was prescribed some medecine (I forget what it was) but the slip with all the background and contraindications included 'depression' as a known side effect. Because of other medication to do with an eye condition (where depression is also a side effect) I decided not to take the BPV-specific medecine and see if I could just ride it out. Lucky me! I have, so far.

So, gnu, the only advice I can offer is that, if you can't change doctors, brief yourself with a bit of background reading and then keep asking the pointy questions (politely, at first) making it quite clear that, as the primary carer involved, you have a need for as much evidence-based information as possible. Most doctors these days will respond positively to such an approach but, if they want to pull the paternalist trick on you I'm sure you'll have what it takes to insist the doctor responds "properly" to your more and more detailed interrogations. If the doctor doesn't respond "properly" you may have grounds for a discussion about unprofessional conduct.

All the best!

Cheers, Rowan