Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Credentials, State vs. private Message-ID: <141@l5.uucp> Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 15:34:19 EDT Article-I.D.: l5.141 Posted: Sat Sep 21 15:34:19 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 07:30:14 EDT References: <4297@alice.UUCP> <1565@umcp-cs.UUCP> <126@l5.uucp> <760@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco Lines: 62 In article <760@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >I don't think this would work for the majority of people, and I think >Charley is right, popular judgement about medicine is unrealistic. >Consider diet plans for example. They are unregulated. Is there a diet-plan >verification agency (public or private)? Well, there's no shortage of >sound medical advice about the dangers of diet plans, and what works. >Do people heed it? No. Actually, a lot of people do heed it. But others do not. >They need only ask their doctors, but instead >they prefer to dream, and make the diet industry one of the largest food- >related industries in America. > Remember, fraud is a big crime in Libertaria. I would like to take a hatchet to North American advertising because I think that it is mostly fraud. The problem is that this level of fraud is tolerated in advertising today. Suppose it were impossible to make outrageous claims - wouldn't this problem go away? Are certification programs now fronts so that the level of lies in advertising need not decrease? Wow, this one will please those who see conspiracies everywhere.... >Why are people so foolish? Got me. However, they are bombarded with >outrageous advertising claims continually. And it doesn't pay anyone to >advertise that something doesn't work. > Wrong! It sure paid Pepsi to advertise that Coke didn't work as well as Pepsi. I don't own a tv, but I got the distinct impression that spot removers, diapers, detergents and paper towels were advertised this way. (of course, why anyone would want to buy a paper towel because it held 4 full coffee cups while the competetor's did not is beyong me.) >Remove the restrictions on medical practice, and you open up a huge can >of worms of this sort. People will choose the quack who makes them feel >best about their medical service; because he tells them "yes, take that >drug", I got news for you. Take a look at the figures on valium consumption. A lot of people choose their doctor *now* for precisely this reason! >because he makes outrageous claims for their health if they follow >his advice, because he tells them their aura gets better and better every >time they visit. And how could anyone sue for malpractice, without some >implicit standard of medical practice? "You didn't diagnose that cancer!" >"That wasn't a cancer, it was an evil spirit, and the patients will wasn't >strong enough. I can't cure everybody." If you take out the bit about ``evil spirits'' and talk about ``diseases which are not responsive to medication'' and ``spontaneous remissions'' you are describing what we have *now*. People really do live and die for no discernable reason. However, if I sell you a car that doesn't have a carburator you are free to sue me. If I don't diagnose your cancer you are free to sue me for precisely the same reason -- fraud. Of course, if I make no claims to diagnose cancer and claim to be a spirit healer, I may not be guilty of fraud -- but then you got what you asked for. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa