4 ms·
The funny thing is that doctors would be the canonical examples for most people. Yet, there is no license that stops a pediatrician from performing brain surger
by ajmurmann 4y ago
The funny thing is that doctors would be the canonical examples for most people. Yet, there is no license that stops a pediatrician from performing brain surgery. What stops the pediatrician from performing brain surgery is that no hospital would hire them as a brain surgeon, no insurance would insure their brain surgery and if something goes wrong they'd likely face a lawsuit they couldn't win. Why is the system able to judge the difference between a pediatrician and a brain surgeon but we need licensing to distinguish between doctor and non-doctor?
- giantg2 4y agoThe answer is in your question. It's the credentialing. The pediatrician lacks the credentials of a neurosurgeon. Just as non-doctors lack the credentials to work as a doctor. The hosptial, insurance, and court would all be looking at the credentials.
- 988747 4y agoCredentials are not the same as license. For example, software engineers do not need to pass any certification exams to practice software engineering, but companies still look at their education, years of experience, etc... Yes, it would make a recruitment process for doctors longer, as you would have to interview them, ask them questions to verify their medical knowledge, etc., but it is not impossible.
- giantg2 4y agoAnd yet, in your software example those companies overwhelming rely on degrees to credentialize candidates regardless of actual skill. Licensing is merely a subset of the larger credentialing world. Even in your doctor example, the license is not the issue - board certification of a specialty would be the issue.
- freejazz 4y agoYou misunderstand licensing. Licensing ensures a minimum of conduct and creates a standard for liability for falling below that level of conduct.
- giantg2 4y agoI know that perfectly well. That doesn't change what I've said as it applies to the examples above.
- freejazz 4y agoIt does. Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them. The state bar doesn't care which lawschool you went to, your LSAT score, your GPA, etc.
- freejazz 4y agoIt's called malpractice. What you described is prima facie malpractice and a key element of malpractice is that it is a licensed profession with a standard of conduct.
- lostlogin 4y ago> there is no license that stops a pediatrician from performing brain surgery. This isn’t the case everywhere. Where I am (New Zealand) each doctor has a scope of practice. You work within your scope. There may be conditions placed on a scope of practice too (eg supervision is required). You can look up every doctor’s scope of practice and get a short summary of their training on the medical council website. Other health professions follow a similar model. https://www.mcnz.org.nz/registration/register-of-doctors/ https://www.mcnz.org.nz/registration/register-of-doctors/
- dinkumthinkum 4y agoThis is kind of an absurd example. The system is setup in such a way that such a person would be in enormous amounts of trouble even face criminal liability. They may not face a law called “practicing medicine without a license” but they would face negligent or other similarly severe charges. As well, the fact that this never, ever happens seems to indicate the current regulatory structure is enough for this.
- lostlogin 4y agoThe US really doesn’t have the concept of ‘scope of practice’? That’s what’s being argued here and other systems have it. It seems an obvious thing.