[rbarooah]

Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing?

People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.

[vidarh]

Because it assumes there would be a real informed choice.

The staggering amount of money that do get paid to quacks selling stuff that is proven not to work show us very clearly that informed choice is largely a fantasy when dealing with the general public.

[rbarooah]

What makes you so sure things would get worse?

[philwelch]

Homeopaths and acupuncturists don't even do normal medical procedures; that's kind of the point. If you are doing normal medical procedures, you should be licensed and regulated to make sure you know what the hell you're doing. The freedom to have an unlicensed witch doctor perform open heart surgery on you isn't an essential human right; it's not even something a sane and informed person would want to do. It's a non-issue.

[rbarooah]

Mentioning witch-doctors, homeopaths and acupuncturists is a straw man.

It seems to me that that private group of scientifically grounded medical practitioners who certified their members, but had different criteria from the state licensing system could be a very good thing.

This alternate certification would need to prove its reputation just as the institutions that certify doctors have. It seems likely that there are ways to train and certify doctors that produce better professionals than the current ones.

I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?

[philwelch]

> It seems to me that that private group of scientifically grounded medical practitioners who certified their members, but had different criteria from the state licensing system could be a very good thing.

Could be, perhaps. Now weigh that hypothetical scenario against what actually happened in history that led to the state medical boards being created.

> I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?

Because we tried that and it didn't work last time. It got so bad that self-proclaimed "doctors" set up self-proclaimed "medical schools" as a con, paid large sums of money for cadavers "no questions asked", and ended up getting people murdered.

Do you have some legitimate problem with your state's medical board? I'd suggest you take it up with your state legislator.

Besides, there are alternatives--some states have separate osteopathic boards that license D.O.'s rather than M.D.'s, yet licensed D.O.'s have the exact same privileges as any other doctor.

[rbarooah]

This is another bunch of straw-men.

I nowhere suggested going back to how things were before, and my proposal explicitly rejected the idea of allowing self-proclaimed doctors.

[philwelch]

Only self-proclaimed licensing boards? If you want an alternative licensing board, the osteopathic boards are it. Otherwise you're just engaging in ideological privatization for the sake of privatization; you don't even have a rationale for what's wrong with the licensing boards we do have.