5 ms·

This would end up spectacularly badly, people are never informed to make good decisions on this

pdonis 3y ago
> people are never informed to make good decisions on this Speak for yourself. I am at least as good as State governments at judging the competence of doctors to treat me. I suspect a lot of people are like me. I particularly suspect that a lot of people who have considerable experience dealing with doctors who were "certified" by State medical boards are like me. The question is not just how good or bad individuals are at it, but whether States are even worse. But even if many are like you, I am not saying States cannot publish information about which doctors they think are certified. I am just saying that patients and doctors should not be restricted by that. Patients who want to rely on their State to do it can of course do that. But patients who want to make use of other information should be allowed to, and doctors should be allowed to treat them if the patients choose, without facing legal penalties.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  The number of people who are capable of judging the competence of doctors is dwarfed by the number of people who believe in quackery. We have a very real problem of people feeding their autistic children bleach in the belief that it will cure them ("miracle mineral solution"). Regulations inconvenience people like you and me, but they save a lot of people who need to be protected from the consequences of their own poor decision-making abilities. I consider that a worthwhile trade-off.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > The number of people who are capable of judging the competence of doctors is dwarfed by the number of people who believe in quackery. Evidence, please?
    - doubleg72 3y ago
      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/moms-go-undercover-fight-fake-autism-cures-private-facebook-groups-n1007871 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/moms-go-undercover-fig...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
Spooky23 3y ago
<s> Dude, this is HN. Some FAANG libertarian developer guy is way smarter than a state licensing board. </s>
JoshTriplett 3y ago
They are more often informed well enough to choose some endorsing body to delegate that decision to, and it's better that they have a choice of such endorsing bodies than a single one they may not agree with. What goes horrifically wrong if there are multiple certifying authorities for medical practitioners, with varying criteria, and various meta-organizations making recommendations about which certifying authorities are better than others, and people make informed decisions accordingly? Some people will absolutely make ill-informed decisions, and those should still be their decisions to make. That seems preferable to the world in which someone can't see the specialist they want to see because they're in another jurisdiction.

> people are never informed to make good decisions on this Speak for yourself. I am at least as good as State governments at judging the competence of doctors to treat me. I suspect a lot of people are like me. I particularly suspect that a lot of people who have considerable experience dealing with doctors who were "certified" by State medical boards are like me. The question is not just how good or bad individuals are at it, but whether States are even worse. But even if many are like you, I am not saying States cannot publish information about which doctors they think are certified. I am just saying that patients and doctors should not be restricted by that. Patients who want to rely on their State to do it can of course do that. But patients who want to make use of other information should be allowed to, and doctors should be allowed to treat them if the patients choose, without facing legal penalties.

jdietrich 3y ago
The number of people who are capable of judging the competence of doctors is dwarfed by the number of people who believe in quackery. We have a very real problem of people feeding their autistic children bleach in the belief that it will cure them ("miracle mineral solution"). Regulations inconvenience people like you and me, but they save a lot of people who need to be protected from the consequences of their own poor decision-making abilities. I consider that a worthwhile trade-off.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The number of people who are capable of judging the competence of doctors is dwarfed by the number of people who believe in quackery. Evidence, please?
  - doubleg72 3y ago
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/moms-go-undercover-fight-fake-autism-cures-private-facebook-groups-n1007871 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/moms-go-undercover-fig...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Spooky23 3y ago

<s> Dude, this is HN. Some FAANG libertarian developer guy is way smarter than a state licensing board. </s>

JoshTriplett 3y ago

They are more often informed well enough to choose some endorsing body to delegate that decision to, and it's better that they have a choice of such endorsing bodies than a single one they may not agree with. What goes horrifically wrong if there are multiple certifying authorities for medical practitioners, with varying criteria, and various meta-organizations making recommendations about which certifying authorities are better than others, and people make informed decisions accordingly? Some people will absolutely make ill-informed decisions, and those should still be their decisions to make. That seems preferable to the world in which someone can't see the specialist they want to see because they're in another jurisdiction.