Eugene wrote:
"I'm not sure how that supports the constitutionality of a ban on simply asking questions -- questions that might well lead to perfectly reasonable advice, though they might also lead to unsound advice -- of adult patients." First, I am not arguing for a government policy on the subject. I do think that doctors are interjecting politics into their medicine so do not sympathize with their complaints that politics are being interjected into medicine. I think they are abusing their position to impose a policy preference that has the slimmest nexus to their trade. Global warming will affect water supply but I don't want to hear a lecture about it from the guy unplugging my toilet. That's not his job. >From the above, it sounds like the constitutionality of defining doctors' speech as "treatment" and restricting it is unresolved or vaguely contoured. Does the constitutionality depend on the scientific merits? And if so, as judged by the legislature or by the courts? If a doctor asks what brand tires you have on your car maybe that's free speech. But if it turns out Pirelli is paying doctors to ask the question as part of a "push-polll" advertising campaign, most people might think a speech restriction would be in order. Who would be the arbiter of whether car tires are a legitimate "health issue" and protected speech?
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
