12:47 AM
@Oddthinking Whatever legislators decide. Preferably those elected, not appointed. There are laws in the USA, but they aren't always scientific based. Stem cell research, for example, has been greatly hindered since Bush Jr and some law that conflates it with cloning, abortion, etc.
"State boards" in the USA are not elected, yet hold a great deal of power over clinicians. Some states are worse than others, but license revoked and financial ruin aren't uncommon results when they come after you. Yes, they take down genuine quacks, yet I've known plenty that just practiced differently, or were on the wrong side of a more dogmatic debate, rather than scientific.
1:13 AM
If labs would run tests without a doc's signature, I'd have about 90% less doctor's visits necessary.
"Diagnose and prescribe", as in "parse reported symptoms, orders labs, look up approved treatments in some book", is not what I'm paying for, yet that's about all most docs will do. I can do all that very easily thanks to the internet (except the damn labs!).
200 years ago docs made the drugs (pharmacists) and tests (labs) themselves! Now they run around pretending they aren't just phoning it in most of the time.
Doctors are essentially consultants these days. If they aren't putting their special knowledge to use for my unique needs when I hire them, then they aren't earning it.
« first day (3502 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1283 days later) »
Transcript for
Sep26
Sep '2027
Oct3
Hub of Reason
General discussion about skeptics.stackexchange.com