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
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---