> Do you really believe that if there is proof of this doctor performing unnecessary surgeries that he will not go to jail?

Absolutely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

For an example of how pervasive and silly QI has gotten:

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...

"Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court decided that two police officers in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole more than $225,000 in assets while executing a search warrant, could not be sued over the incident. Though "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," the unanimous 9th Circuit panel said, the officers "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.""

> But when it can be proven that people here broke laws, they do go to jail.

I mean, sometimes.

Sometimes they kill four people while drunk and get probation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch

This is incorrect and a misunderstanding of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity refers to not being allowed to sue for those officer's personal property.

It has nothing to do with the criminal consequences (ie going to jail). Those officers absolutely can be sent to prison.

It demonstrates a particular deference towards law enforcement in our legal system.

I don't understand how you can look at a system that commits a series of human rights violations and be like "it was just one bad doctor"

There's a pattern here, notice it