(I started this as a comment to deword's excellent answer, but when it started to spill over into the third comment, I thought I'd better post as an answer. If this isn't correct, please let me know.)
This is a great answer. I also believe, however, that A E makes a good case for his position.
Addressing this statement: Because frankly, if tea-tree oil was a valid alternative that caused less pain, the doctor would be prescribing that instead. Here is why I disagree with this.
Things to keep in mind when suggesting going to a doctor (e.g. for pretty benign conditions):
- All doctors see a problem for the first time. A first timer's advice (though ideally it should be) is possibly not as valuable as a doctor who has seen/treated/observed the treatment effects of multiple cases, and might not be as valuable even as a parent who's been through the process with multiple kids.
- Allopathic docs are not trained in naturopathic medicine (note: not homeopathic), so will not be familiar with that approach, even when it's effective except in very common problems (e.g. menopause, migraines). Even then, the majority of docs will favor a familiar allopathic approach to a less familiar naturopathic approach.
- Drug companies have little to gain from naturopathic approaches, so avoid them. This bias is unfortunately represented in medical literature about treatments.
- Naturopathic remedies are not extensively tested for evidence based results because such studies are too expensive (i.e. no drug money behind them), so there's less "concrete evidence" to support their use, which does not mean that they're necessarily less effective.
It's not that "if you don't like them, you can avoid answering them", it's where people love answering these, but give very bad advice. Just because the ailment's minor, doesn't mean that the "treatment" is.
This is a great insight. However, I've twice seen really bad advice dispensed here by users with dangerous biases; the first time, I tried to combat it in comments (which were subsequently deleted as argumentative); the second time I just gritted my teeth (shameless plug for another SE site), because a some doctors who don't know better have given the same advice.
Doctors aren't specialists in every field. Dermatologists know much more about the treatment of skin conditions than your average Generalist. Dermatologists know much less than the average Generalist about treatment of Irritable Bowel Disease. The advantages of each are different. A Generalist should be regarded as a very competent "gateway" physician: a doctor who can treat common problems well but who can recognize the problems that should be referred to specialists on emergent and routine bases.*
I agree with A E about the Latin name. I don't know a common name for molluscum contagiosum either. (Most people describe them as white bumps. Doctors sometimes describe them as pearly papules. I've never heard of a common name, and can't find one on a quick search, either.) My guess is that Latin names shouldn't be a screening screening criteria for whether a question is asking for medical advice.
If any of the above is helpful to the discussion of closing as off-topic for medical reasons, I'm very happy. I would like to add my $.02 cents about comments here on questions closed as OT for the above.
If the concern is about liability or quality of advice, I think comments shouldn't be made on such questions because sometimes bad advice (granted, this is only my opinion on the quality of the advice) is given in comments as well. A mod, or whoever closes, can leave a helpful comment which , e.g. can encourage the reader to seek medical advice, or link to an outside source, or encourage the OP, if new, to return here for other types of questions. I've done that. I also admit that when I felt strongly, I've given advice in a comment or even answered a question when I felt it was really important to do so. (Both those questions appear to have been deleted.)
Anyway, that's my take on this, and I don't mean to throw my opinion around as being more valuable than anyone else's, so if I come across that way, please forgive me. It's just an alternate viewpoint. And I'm sorry it's so long. :(
*This is why Family Medicine was conceived as a specialty: many of the older GP's in the US were not as competent as they needed to be. In the US, anyone with an MD and a year's training consisting of a rotating internship can hang a shingle. Nowadays, the old idea of a GP is gone, and has been replaced with Primary Care Physician which requires more training than the GPs of previous decades. FP's need at least three years of hospital and clinic based supervised training with a minimum number of rotations in specialty areas. Many FPs take up to two years of additional specialty training: e.g. Obstetrics, Emergency Medicine, Surgery, etc. I won't bore you with further details of why FPs are better qualified to treat many patients than Generalists. I have biases as well as the next person. :)