One could perceive antibiotics alone as ignoring a deeper root cause, such as the patient engaging in risky behavior (not washing hands, eating rotten food, etc.). A prescription for statins doesn't necessarily address why the body is producing excess cholesterol.
Over 50% of the variability in cholesterol levels is attributable to genetic factors. The root cause of high cholesterol will typically be an unlucky genetic profile.
Hundreds of genes participate in cholesterol metabolism, and since cholesterol is a complex trait, most people will have various polymorphisms in multiple lipid genes, each of which confers only a modest effect. Consequently, while the root cause(s) will ultimately become known in the next few years, it seems unlikely to change the standard of care: statins. Sure, this knowledge will help us develop new cholesterol lowering drugs, but the fact remains that it will be impossible and, in general, pointless to target a specific therapy to a specific genetic profile (at least for LDL).
I don't think that patient behaviors are a good example of medicine's failures. A rational actor may decide to value many things over their own personal health. It's like saying that intravenous drug use and unprotected sex are the root causes of AIDS. That's more a public health viewpoint. I see HIV as the root cause of AIDS, and I find treatments or cures as a far more interesting medical problem. Likewise, the public health perspective on bacterial infection is to avoid it (clean clothes thoroughly to reduce staph transmission between wrestlers). From a medical perspective, the interesting question is, once you have staph, can we cure it? Killing the causal bacterium is basically the definition of a treatment aimed at the root cause. I don't think that redefinition of "root cause" makes the problem more interesting; it just makes it less medical.
I see your point, and concede that some "root causes" should be out of scope for the medical field. I believe that solutions to problems should be sought by the appropriate groups at every stage of progression and every level of abstraction. However, during an actual patient/doctor visit, public health "root causes" should probably be at least discussed.
Definitely. Studies have shown that discussion with a physician is effective (just not very much). But better than nothing. I just don't want to depend on physicians talking people out of eating too much as being the only solution; this is simply not effective enough given the severity of the problem.
the patient engaging in risky behavior (not washing hands, eating rotten food, etc.).
I see where you're going, but this may not be the best example. I believe it's currently thought that exposure to some bacteria and other uncleanliness is essentially exercise for your immune system, especially in childhood.
But, of course, I am not in the medical field.