7 ms·
I love the Institute for Justice and the types of cases they take on. This one, unfortunately, is weak. If we say that paid health advice is protected speech, t
by ccleve 7y ago
I love the Institute for Justice and the types of cases they take on. This one, unfortunately, is weak. If we say that paid health advice is protected speech, then we can no longer have licensing requirements for doctors who merely give advice.
I like doctors to be licensed. I'm normally anti-regulation, but this is an exception.
The real issue here is the onerous occupational licensing requirements in Florida. To be a nutritionist in Florida, you need a degree and 900 hours of work. That's far too much.
Occupational licensing has become a way for an industry to form a cartel. It's a major public policy problem, and the IJ is right to take it on. They've fought against it in a great many cases and had some success.
Unfortunately, though, the First Amendment is a blunt tool and doesn't work very well in this particular case. I wish they had a better tool.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago> I like doctors to be licensed. I think this is a category error. People want doctors to be licensed because they perform medical services. A surgeon or anesthesiologist who screws up can easily kill you. Doctors have the authority to prescribe certain controlled substances that are addictive or fatal in the wrong dosages. The damage "doctors who merely give advice" can do is coterminous with the damage random bloggers can do.
- md2be 7y agoYou are conflating the right to carry out a business with the right to free speech. There are many reasons for licensing a business - sufficient liability insurance - self dealing etc.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoNone of which has anything specifically to do with doctors, nor are they to my knowledge typically even required of a business that sells e.g. fashion advice.