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