Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ur-tut.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!john
From: john@ur-tut.UUCP (John Gurian)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: legal definition of practice of medicine --SO WHAT??--
Message-ID: <160@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 09:54:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-tut.160
Posted: Mon Oct 14 09:54:19 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:47:32 EDT
References: <10573@ucbvax.ARPA> <1926@bmcg.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 19

> 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