There is a certain element of truth to what you are saying. When I was early in my training I was dissappointed in my choice of medicine as a career because I also thought it lacked an outlet for creativity. As a now experienced physician, there are still times when you get to a point in the care of some patients at which the next step is programmatic and rote (if A then B).
However, sometimes--probably most of the time--the patient's presentation is so unclear (e.g. "I just feel weird. . . ."), there are so many variables to juggle in your head at once (twenty different lab values, the way the liver feels, the imaging findings, the color of the patient's sclera, the smell of their breath, their mood) that things become far too complex for any flowchart. These are the times when you need creativity, "book smarts" and perhaps above all, "emotional intelligence" to be a good doctor. There are plenty of doctors lacking one or more of these elements, and they just aren't very good at the job.
That makes a lot of sense. The above criterion I mentioned does seem to fall apart since I do consider problem solving to be inherently creative even though oftentimes there is only one answer.
Good to hear from an actual physician though. Do you think that your initial disappointment is a unique response or do most med students go through it? I ask because everyone I know who is getting accepted to med school has wanted to be a doctor since high school. I assume that makes med students get tunnel-vision when deciding their career choices and have an idealized, incorrect view of the field. (I figure most future doctors just get over this pretty quickly by finding different, but equally important reasons to be in the field.)
I can't speak for everyone else, but for myself, "tunnel vision" explains it pretty well. At some point in high school, I just decided being a doctor was a totally awesome thing to do. I can't remember the real reasons why I chose medicine, but I know it was somewhat vague. I knew doctors were smart and I thought I was pretty smart. I am embarrassed to admit I also may have fantasized about driving a BMW from my big house with a pool straight to the OR, busting in with an "S" on my chest to save somebody's life.
In college, I was drawn to the humanities and to computer science more than to biology, but I stuck with it. I was a willing victim of the rather unhealthy obsession with "getting in" that most pre-meds develop. Medical school, at least at first, was a rude awakening. It was not intellectually challenging (other than by virtue of the sheer volume of material), it was rote, the hours sucked, the and the culture was unpleasant.
It was not until a couple of years into my residency that I started to really appreciate more of the nuances, and to enjoy practicing medicine. As it stands today, I love what I do. I help people in a tangible way, I make a good living, I am respected and valued by my community, and at as I described above, my creative and intellectual muscles get a daily workout. However, I don't do any busting into ORs and, sadly, I don't drive a BMW.
However, sometimes--probably most of the time--the patient's presentation is so unclear (e.g. "I just feel weird. . . ."), there are so many variables to juggle in your head at once (twenty different lab values, the way the liver feels, the imaging findings, the color of the patient's sclera, the smell of their breath, their mood) that things become far too complex for any flowchart. These are the times when you need creativity, "book smarts" and perhaps above all, "emotional intelligence" to be a good doctor. There are plenty of doctors lacking one or more of these elements, and they just aren't very good at the job.