Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: legal definition of practice of medicine --SO WHAT??--
Message-ID: <1349@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 11:25:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1349
Posted: Sat Oct 12 11:25:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 04:19:03 EDT
References: <10573@ucbvax.ARPA> <1926@bmcg.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.med:2554 net.legal:2432

> 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