sean@zinfandel.UUCP (Sean Gilligan) (08/09/84)
>Libertarian position on medical regulation: if you go to a quack and >his surgery results in you losing a leg, you'll know not to go back >to him again. If his surgery results in your death, that's OK: you >can sue. > >Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian. Typical U.S. Government position on medical regulation: If someone goes to a quack and the surgery results in the patient losing a leg, the government forms a committee to investigate at a cost of $10 million in your and my tax dollars. Additional action follows. Patient still knows not to go back to quack doctor. Patient still only has one leg. If the surgery results in his death, the government then outlaws any and all similair surgery regardless of whether that surgery (when performed by a competent doctor) could save lives. Doctor still can be sued. Patient is still dead. Disclaimer: I am not a politician. Hope this isn't too inflamatory. Actually, the above was a compelling argument - that is why I bothered to respond. Remember: destructive criticism is easy, constructive criticism is harder, and a better solution is even harder. Even with our marvelous government regulation (I believe its stricter here than in comparable nations) there are still plenty of malpractice suits and plenty of quacks. I am still trying to invent a political system that corrects "injustices" before thay happen. Perhaps the best solution would be to thoroughly check out a doctor before you let him play God with your internals. Sean Gilligan P.S. Am not a Libertarian. But am interested in receiving mail (I don't know how to send it!) from any of the interesting libertarians (like Brad Miller and Nat Howard) out there. Please send pointers to recommended books and tell me how to send mail back to you. Thanks.