usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/08/85)
From the San Francisco Chronicle, October 7, 1985 ************************************************* 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. ***************************************************** :-(
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (10/11/85)
*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** > > 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. > Lawyers take pride in being logical, yet produce such vague nonsense as the above. The result is that the written law is useless in deciding what is legal and what is not. Going by the above, I might be put in jail for putting a band-aid on my own finger. Maybe if lawyers were required to take a course in computer programming, they might use language with more precision(:-). Or, maybe their INTENTION is to make it sound like everything is illegal so there is more opportunity to create case law. Or, maybe the above definition DOES mean something, but I don't understand the words. Is it too much to ask that a literate person should be able to go to the library and look up whether something is legal or not? Titillating Part: Especially amazing are the laws relating to sexual conduct: they are riddled with phrases like "crime against nature", "moral nuisance", "lewd behavior", etc. instead of saying exactly what you are allowed to do with exactly what parts of your anatomy. There ought to be a law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al | ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al ------------------------------------------------------------------------
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (10/15/85)
> > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ While my classmates and I found the definition amusing, there was a uniform reaction to this last line. We're spending 4-7 years working 90 hour weeks (and that's a light week), going a quarter of a million dollars in debt to get our MD degree and medical licenses ... THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. And remember, "Comedy, like Medicine, was never meant to be practiced by the general public." -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "The world is just a straight man for you sometimes"
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/15/85)
In article <376@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: > Maybe if lawyers were required to >take a course in computer programming, they might use language >with more precision(:-). Many drafters of statutes create unintentional structural ambiguities due to careless use of words like "if", "unless", and so on. Layman Allen (now of U of Michigan Law School) has written extensively on structural ambiguity in the law, and is finally being listened to, at least in some parts. A former student of Layman's, Grayfred Gray, is now the drafter of statutes for the State of Tennessee, and the state is now enacting statutes that follow Layman Allen's "normalized" drafting techniques, including indenting, capital letters for key syntax words like IF, and so on. Layman has had a standing bet for years that he can pick up any statute, open it up to a random two pages and find a structural ambiguity. He never lost the bet until I challenged him on the Income Tax Act of Canada last summer. We spent half an hour poring through the sections he opened the book up on, and I'm still waiting for him to get back to me and show me the unintentional ambiguity. (Which says something about the drafting of the Income Tax Act.) (Which also says something about why my specialty in law is tax, I suppose.) > Or, maybe their INTENTION is to make it >sound like everything is illegal so there is more opportunity >to create case law. Or, maybe the above definition DOES mean >something, but I don't understand the words. Is it too much to ask >that a literate person should be able to go to the library and >look up whether something is legal or not? The drafting which was quoted (definition of practising medicine) isn't particularly good, but it's an example of intentional ambiguity rather than unintentional ambiguity. You're close to the mark when you say "so there is more opportunity to create case law". In fact, at the time legislation is drafted it's often very difficult to predict the strange and novel fact situations which will emerge. Therefore, you use relatively loose language (semantically, not syntactically or structurally!) and leave it to the courts to interpret the language in the context of the facts of the case and the times in which the case comes up. >Titillating Part: Especially amazing are the laws relating to sexual >conduct: they are riddled with phrases like "crime against nature", >"moral nuisance", "lewd behavior", etc. instead of saying exactly what >you are allowed to do with exactly what parts of your anatomy. Again, what's considered lewd or a moral nuisance at one time and in one part of a jurisdiction (particularly in a large jurisdiction such as Canada, which has one Criminal Code for the whole country) may not be so at a later time or at a different place. It's left to the courts to interpret the law in the context of the times. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/17/85)
In article <376@mot.UUCP> you write: >*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** > >Titillating Part: Especially amazing are the laws relating to sexual >conduct: they are riddled with phrases like "crime against nature", >"moral nuisance", "lewd behavior", etc. instead of saying exactly what >you are allowed to do with exactly what parts of your anatomy. > Well, that dedends upon the state. Try reading the Kansas Statutes sometime. They are considerably more explicit(and *precise*). I do not believe you will find any of the above phrases in the current Kansas statutes.(The old version, which was replaced in toto sometime during the 60's, *did* have that sort of language.) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (10/17/85)
> > > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ ... > THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. > > Craig Werner Hmmm, so if I told my Aunt Mabel that I thought a cup of herb tea might make her feel less tired sore then I would be in a class with someone who murdered and raped for a living? 1/2 :-) Line eater must have eaten your smiley face ... Why not certification rather than licensing? Let the malpractice claims sort out the poor practitioners. (Certification would work like it does for CPA's. I can have anyone do my bookkeeping, but if I want assurance that they know what they are doing, I get a CPA.) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP ( Mike D McEvoy) (10/17/85)
Distribution:net.med, net.legal Organization: Purdue Engineering Computer Network, West Lafayette, IN Keywords: >> > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > While my classmates and I found the definition amusing, there was a > uniform reaction to this last line. > We're spending 4-7 years working 90 hour weeks (and that's a light > week), going a quarter of a million dollars in debt to get our MD > degree and medical licenses ... > > THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. Of course, in order to maintain the status quo, those found guilty of malpractice will be sentenced to death by lethal injection (AIDS virus???) or worse Four more years of residency at - Insert your favorite med school - Big Mac
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (10/18/85)
> > > > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > ... > > THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. > > > > Craig Werner > > Hmmm, so if I told my Aunt Mabel that I thought a cup of herb tea > might make her feel less tired sore then I would be in a class with > someone who murdered and raped for a living? 1/2 :-) In some instances, across the country, the unlicensed practice can be a felony. There have even been felonious instances by a licensed doctor. > Why not certification rather than licensing? Let the malpractice > claims sort out the poor practitioners. (Certification would work > like it does for CPA's. I can have anyone do my bookkeeping, but > if I want assurance that they know what they are doing, I get a CPA.) > > E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Mr. Smith, doctors do go through a certification of sorts. My brother is a doctor. He had to go through three sets of medical board exams.
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (10/21/85)
In article <403@ecn-pc.UUCP> mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP ( M D McEvoy) writes: >Of course, in order to maintain the status quo, those found guilty of >malpractice will be sentenced to... >Four more years of residency at - Insert your favorite med school - But there are Constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (10/21/85)
> > > > > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > > ... > > > THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. > > > > Hmmm, so if I told my Aunt Mabel that I thought a cup of herb tea > > might make her feel less tired & sore then I would be in a class with > > someone who murdered and raped for a living? 1/2 :-) > > In some instances, across the country, the unlicensed practice can be a > felony. There have even been felonious instances by a licensed doctor. > > > Why not certification rather than licensing? Let the malpractice > > claims sort out the poor practitioners. (Certification would work > > like it does for CPA's. I can have anyone do my bookkeeping, but > > if I want assurance that they know what they are doing, I get a CPA.) > > > Mr. Smith, doctors do go through a certification of sorts. My brother > is a doctor. He had to go through three sets of medical board exams. The distinction between LICENSING and CERTIFICATION is a legal one having little to do with the degree of preparation or skill. A license gives you the right to do something that would be a crime for the un-licenced to do. A certification gives you the right to do something and claim exceptional expertise at doing it when others are allowed to do it, but are not allowed to claim exceptional expertise at doing it. There may also be some limitations on the ability of the un-certificated to practice in some situations. In the area of medicine, to offer treatment without a licence is a crime. Under certification, it would not be a crime; though taking the offer might be stupid ... :-) While it is usually the case that both licensing and certification require some formal training and/or examination; the distinction between them rests on the penalty for practice when not blessed by having the paper. Physicians are licenced, not certified. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (10/24/85)
> > The unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor. > THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS MAKE IT A FELONY. Perhaps this is a little off the subject, but have you ever heard of anyone being convicted of practicing management without a license? I know several who should have been. -- Dave Williams Tektronix, Inc. Graphic Workstations Division *********************** * This space for rent * * * * (cheap) * ***********************