3 ms·

I personally agree with the government that you should probably have an advanced degree before being allowed to cut into or administer drugs to a living creatur

I personally agree with the government that you should probably have an advanced degree before being allowed to cut into or administer drugs to a living creature.

freedomben 3y ago
I'm by no means advocating a YOLO approach of no requirements, but there's definitely unnecessary bloat in the requirements. Just looking at the incentives, the people who make the rules benefit financially from making those rules as arduous and all-encompassing as they can get away with, and in order to become a rule maker you have to be fully in the system, so it's a positive feedback loop. The same mechanism can be seen with licensing rules on haircutters and stylists.
ndriscoll 3y ago
Why? The effect of that is that it becomes too expensive to treat that living creature, so it gets euthanized instead. Or just let the creature suffer until it dies on its own.
- KittenInABox 3y ago
  I would rather euthpanize my dog than subject it to quack vets.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    And you think everyone should have to make that choice? And that e.g. 4 years for an undergraduate degree isn't enough to become proficient in treating cats (at least for the stuff that's worth treating)?
    - NegativeK 3y ago
      This thread has become casually dismissive and insulting to the actual work that vets do. Techs (for states that require technician certification, it's a two year degree) do a lot of the work with pets. There's often more than one technician per doctor. That reduces costs. Doctors are still needed because, unsurprisingly, cases can have a lot of nuance that requires significant training to see.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        That's fine if people want the best care for their pet, but not everyone is going to care about getting that level of service. I've taken in multiple strays over the years that found their way to me. Shelters where I lived were already overcrowded. The counterfactual was likely that they get hit by a car or caught by the city and euthanized. I'm sympathetic toward animals, but there's a lot of them that are lucky to have anyone take them in at all, and a lot that aren't that lucky. If someone wants to get an animal some level of care without there being someone with a postgraduate degree to supervise (instead of no care), that sounds like a good thing. They could always be referred to a more qualified vet if needed.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Doctors are not need or wanted by everyone. I would go to an unlicensed vet for cheaper 10/10 times. For the routine tasks, eg flea medication or bloodwork, a vet isn't helpful. For difficult tasks like surgery, a vet is too expensive. I'd rather use a quack in every case.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The good news is that nobody would force you to. They could go to quack veterinarians and you could go to certified ones.

I personally agree with the government that you should probably have an advanced degree before being allowed to cut into or administer drugs to a living creature.

freedomben 3y ago

I'm by no means advocating a YOLO approach of no requirements, but there's definitely unnecessary bloat in the requirements. Just looking at the incentives, the people who make the rules benefit financially from making those rules as arduous and all-encompassing as they can get away with, and in order to become a rule maker you have to be fully in the system, so it's a positive feedback loop. The same mechanism can be seen with licensing rules on haircutters and stylists.

ndriscoll 3y ago

Why? The effect of that is that it becomes too expensive to treat that living creature, so it gets euthanized instead. Or just let the creature suffer until it dies on its own.

KittenInABox 3y ago
I would rather euthpanize my dog than subject it to quack vets.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  And you think everyone should have to make that choice? And that e.g. 4 years for an undergraduate degree isn't enough to become proficient in treating cats (at least for the stuff that's worth treating)?
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    This thread has become casually dismissive and insulting to the actual work that vets do. Techs (for states that require technician certification, it's a two year degree) do a lot of the work with pets. There's often more than one technician per doctor. That reduces costs. Doctors are still needed because, unsurprisingly, cases can have a lot of nuance that requires significant training to see.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      That's fine if people want the best care for their pet, but not everyone is going to care about getting that level of service. I've taken in multiple strays over the years that found their way to me. Shelters where I lived were already overcrowded. The counterfactual was likely that they get hit by a car or caught by the city and euthanized. I'm sympathetic toward animals, but there's a lot of them that are lucky to have anyone take them in at all, and a lot that aren't that lucky. If someone wants to get an animal some level of care without there being someone with a postgraduate degree to supervise (instead of no care), that sounds like a good thing. They could always be referred to a more qualified vet if needed.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Doctors are not need or wanted by everyone. I would go to an unlicensed vet for cheaper 10/10 times. For the routine tasks, eg flea medication or bloodwork, a vet isn't helpful. For difficult tasks like surgery, a vet is too expensive. I'd rather use a quack in every case.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The good news is that nobody would force you to. They could go to quack veterinarians and you could go to certified ones.