bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (10/10/85)
> Section 2052, California Business and Professional code > defines the practice of medicine as: > > "Any person who practices or attempts to practice or who > advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing > any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in > this state or who diagnoses, treats, operates, for or > prescribes for any ailment, blemish, deformity, disease, > disfigurement, disorder injury or other physical or > mental condition of any person." > > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > When I was still in college (turn of the century, I think |-) ) my law prof. brought up a topic for discussion and I want to do it here if you'all don't mind. Why do you -as a patient- have to be required to seek services from a doctor who had to get licensed by the state. Think about it--- If I wanted to entrust my broken arm to you, and you were willing to accept the job of fixing it but didn't have a piece of paper, so what? If I have faith in you why can't I let you do it? If you screw it up its my fault for going to you and not a licensed doctor but why don't I have the liberty to pick whomever I wish??
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/12/85)
> When I was still in college (turn of the century, I think |-) ) my > law prof. brought up a topic for discussion and I want to do it > here if you'all don't mind. > > Why do you -as a patient- have to be required to seek services from > a doctor who had to get licensed by the state. > > Think about it--- > > If I wanted to entrust my broken arm to you, and you were willing > to accept the job of fixing it but didn't have a piece of paper, > so what? If I have faith in you why can't I let you do it? If you > screw it up its my fault for going to you and not a licensed doctor > but why don't I have the liberty to pick whomever I wish?? ----- A long debate on just this point has been raging in net.politics.theory for some time, where libertarians have been presenting this point of view, and others have rebutted it. I hope the above poster will join that discussion, rather than starting a new one in net.med. This issue is much more political than medical. Lets try to keep politics out of net.med. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
john@ur-tut.UUCP (John Gurian) (10/14/85)
> If I wanted to entrust my broken arm to you, and you were willing > to accept the job of fixing it but didn't have a piece of paper, > so what? If I have faith in you why can't I let you do it? If you > screw it up its my fault for going to you and not a licensed doctor > but why don't I have the liberty to pick whomever I wish?? You are assuming that the person you entrust your care to has not misrepresented his abilities as a healer. The point is that a large amount of damage may be done by someone who is misrepresenting him/herself to a small, but nonetheless gullible segment of society. Also remember that how gullible a potential victim is depends on how fast a talker the "healer" in question is. Although the number of charlatans at large may be small, the potential damage that they can cause is large, hence the requirement of licensure for the physician. Remember - I'm not arguing for taking away the right of an INFORMED consumer of health care to go to who they want, but I think the potential for abuse of an UNINFORMED consumer makes licensure necessary. --------- John Gurian (siesmo!rochester!ur-tut!john) --------- Univ. Rochester School of Medicine
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (10/14/85)
> > Why do you -as a patient- have to be required to seek services from > > a doctor who had to get licensed by the state. > > > > If I wanted to entrust my broken arm to you, and you were willing > > to accept the job of fixing it but didn't have a piece of paper, > > so what? If I have faith in you why can't I let you do it? If you > > screw it up its my fault for going to you and not a licensed doctor > > but why don't I have the liberty to pick whomever I wish?? > ----- > A long debate on just this point has been raging in net.politics.theory > for some time, where libertarians have been presenting this point > of view, and others have rebutted it. I hope the above poster will > join that discussion, rather than starting a new one in net.med. > This issue is much more political than medical. Lets try to keep > politics out of net.med. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I am the original poster and I don't subscribe to net.politics.theory. Thank you for pointing out where to go (did I phrase that right?). I think it is a interesting discussion and I'll pick it up in the other group. Thanks---