We allow people to make the null decision in law–defending themselves. What we do not do is allow people to go to the local barber for an appendectomy.
I’m guessing you haven’t worked in the criminal apellate world :D.
Convicted prisoners have on their hands: (A) time, (B) a pending legal matter, and © access to a law library. This formula yields a fairly high number of pro se petitions, especially given the fact that the first thing prisoners learn is how to file a “porpoise motion.” (A motion in the form of a porpoise, as a friend of mine was earnestly told by one of his clients - it turns out the guy was talking about filing in forma pauperis, “as a pauper,” a determination that the apellant was indigent and entitled to have the filing fee waived.)
Eventually, a court may reach a finding as to a particular person that they have a history of abusing the system with baseless and frivolous motions, and require them to either pay a filing fee or even limit them to filing only in response to a claim against them. But in the interim, you see a lot of “self-help” habeas petitions and PCR motions.
- Rick
The only crooks I represent are those launching IPOs. 
Fair point, though. I was thinking more along the lines of trial-level representation, where pro se is, I believe, the exception rather than the rule.
And this supports my contention that throwing open the bar would hurt judicial efficiency. Imagine the kinds of petitions you describe flooding trial courts in both criminal and civil contexts.
If I have appendecitis and decide to forego any medical treatment, how is that different from going to a barber for an appendectomy?
Bad example. A better example would be a heart condition whose risk could be minimized by surgery. Going to your barber for such surgery is a substantially worse alternative to electing the null decision, which is itself worse than going to a licensed physician.
(How do you even know you have appendecitis, as opposed to some other source of abdominal pain, without the opinion of a medical professional?)
Appendecitis, if untreated, is almost certain death.
It actually doesn’t matter, but let’s say that you went to a doctor, were properly diagnosed, and decided to use prayer as your only treatment.
I know. What of it? There are a lot more medical situations of the type I describe (where inaction is better than action by the unqualified). You’re talking zebras when you should be talking horses. **
If you’re using prayer as your only treatment, why are you bothering to go to a doctor for diagnosis? Surely God knows what ails you…
If inaction=death, how can any other action be worse?
There’s no logic in this decision. That’s the whole point. One does have the right to ignore logic does one not? As long as your ignorance of logic doesn’t harm someone else.
My bad on the first quote. I misread what you were saying.
In reality, though, I think you are ignoring the amount of decision making the patient must do himself. I remember reading It’s Not About the Bike, by Lance Armstrong, and being struck by how he got confilcting advice from various doctors and had to do reasearch himself to decide which course of treatment to pursue. I’d say it’s the same in choosing between traditional and nontraditional medicine.
And you never answered my original question in response to your question of whether people would choose a certified doctor if uncertified doctors were available.
I disagree. There is a difference in choosing between two choices presented by competent practitioners who have good-faith, well-thought-out differences of opinion on the best course of treatment, and deciding between two choices offered, respectively, by a legitimate doctor and a quack. In the former case, you’ve got a pretty good shot at doing the right thing whichever course of action you choose. Not so with the latter. **
Care to extend the courtesy of not making me comb the thread for the item in question?
Originally posted by DCU:
Given the number of people who persist in believing in peudoscientivid remedies – see the GD thread on magnetic therapay currently under discussion – do you really think people would pay attention to a license that only amounted to a recommendation?
To which I rresonded:
Would you? And if you would, why wouldn’t most other people? Unless you think you are smarter than most other people.
Besides, those psuedoscience rememdies are available today. I can go in for some crystal therapy or homeopathic therapy or whatever. As long as the practitioner does not claim to be practicing medicine.
I’ll come back and adress the other part of your past later.
Oh. The answers are, respectively, “no,” and “because people are idiots.” Again, see the GD discussion of magnetic therapy. Or watch an episode of Jonathan Edward’s “Crossing Over.”
And while yeah, pseudoscientific remedies are still available, I think it’s a good thing that we prevent them from taking on the respectable air conferred by the label “medical practice.” **
Other part of my past?!? But…but…I swear I didn’t shot that man in Reno! I mean, it was self-defense! I mean, it was justified!
Alright, I admit it! I did it just to watch him die! You’ve caught me! How did you know?!?
Errr…shoot that man…Gaudere’s Law rears its ugly head…
Dewey said simply…
“There is a difference in choosing between two choices presented by competent practitioners who have good-faith, well-thought-out differences of opinion on the best course of treatment, and deciding between **two choices **offered, respectively, by a legitimate [sic] doctor and a quack. In the former case, you’ve got a pretty good shot at doing the right thing whichever course of action you choose. Not so with the latter.”
Listen…
Notwithstanding that perhaps as many as twenty per cent of the appendixes removed by accredited doctors in the United States today, are removed because of the ignorance of the accredated doctors doing the removing. But, happily, the damage done to patients by quack doctors as opposed to accredted doctors is closer to fifty per cent. The difference is due to modern day machinery. Quack lawyers are bereft of the proper interpretation of American law.
But like a drunk who refuses to admit that he is a drunk, our lawyers, who are egoists, believe that they are…no, not God, but his special messengers on earth.
I don’t want to have to take the bar exam next July. In fact, I’m gonna end up spending some $500 on reg fee and “character and fitness” report crap, plus bar prep, plus all that other junk.
So yeah, scrap it. I should be able to practice with just my law degree.
Twenty percent?
You wouldnt’ have a cite for this figure, would you? And for your fifty percent claim?
This being GD and all.
Thanks.
- Rick
I hate to drag this fascinating discussion backwards, but there was an earlier point about having a court appoint all attorneys for litigation. The best objection was the “Lionel Hutz” possibility.
But isn’t this exactly how the English system of representation happens? You can pick your solicitor, but the barrister that actually represents you in court is assigned on a “cab rank”. That is, there is a strict rotation and neither you nor the barrister pick who represents whom. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here. This is rather muzzily-remembered and it may have changed).
If this partial system of assigned representation works there, could it work here? More importantly, would it improve anything? I tend to think the opposite would happen: with two classes of lawyers, the cost of representation may actually need to rise to pay for increased overhead.
Also, in regards to the licensed/unlicensed doctor example. You are aware, John that this system actually happens, aren’t you? I’m not talking about “alternative” practioners – most studies show that patients see these as well as allopathic or osteopathic physicians. I’m talking about black market “kitchen table doctors”. Generally found in either urban or rural poor areas. My wife (a foot surgeon) has spent many practice hours trying to repair damage from these types. What you are proposing is that we say “go for it” and make this a standard part of our medical system. The cost to both individuals and society in general in morbidity, mortality, and money would not be acceptable to most, I’d wager.
In fact, this is exactly why the current medical licensing systems developed over the last hundred years. As a society, we tried your alternative already, and rejected it in favor of one with medical boards, state licensing, and defined areas of practice.
To put it another way: I am not licensed or formally trained in either law or medicine (although I was an EMT, that’s a far cry from what we’re talking about). I am also well-read and of above-average intelligence (*). With enough research, I could probably get away with performing an I&D to treat an infected skin ulcer or with drawing up a simple living will.
Would you actually want me to do either of these things? Only if you were a complete and utter fool.
Why?
Because I am smart enough to know that I am not smart enough to either of these things well. In the first example, what happens if you have necrotizing fasciitis and I don’t recognize it? I’ll tell you what happens; you will lose either your life or a limb. In the second example, what happens if I miss some of the case law on living wills in your state? Well, do you want to be the next Terry Schiavo?(**)
This brings to mind of the study GMRyujin links to in his sig: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. The people most likely to wind up as the unlicensed attorneys and unlicensed doctors are the ones that are least likely to be good at it.
And, lastly, two things for milum to consider.
First, concerning the percentage of unnecesary appendectomies, you’re not far off. A Scottish study found that 25% were not necessary, but a recent American study puts the number closer to 15.5%. Where I think you are missing something is why a certain percentage of “unneccessary” emergency appendectomies is a Good Thing. The diagnosis of appendicitis is tricky, and mostly based on clinical impressions. The use of new imaging techniques is not reducing the complexity of the diagnosis. If a patient has untreated appendicitis, they could face severe complications (although death is less likely than John implies (cite)). So, since we cannot be sure that an infected appendix is not the source of abdominal pain without actually going in and looking at it, a certain proportion of appendectomies will be “unneccessary”, in that that physician was ruling out a serious disorder. Which, of course, implies that we want trained, licensed, boarded clinicians making these judgements.
Second, concerning your indictment for “heresy”, I do not think that word means what you think it means. The OED defines Heresy as “a belief or practice contrary to orthodox doctine”. Yet your indictment charges law schools with enforcing exactly this kind of orthodox doctrine. The only heresy charges brought today are by churches and other religious bodies. I suggest you use a different term to define what you are charging law schools with doing.
*No, this is not an arrogant boast, it is a justifiable statement of fact.
**Granted, she had no living will. But my point is that a bad living will could be just as bad or even worse than none at all.
paperbackwriter
The appendix analogy,parperback, was just to provide a beginning talking point (as they say) for discussing the success rate of our gaggle of lawyers practicing in the states today. The current medical profession mirrows the legal profession but not exactly. A segment of the medical profession made a few hundred million bucks unnecessairly removing the tonsils and unnesscessairly choping off the foreskin from the peters of little boys for fifty years, but they were mostly just ignorant. To judge the sucess of the despendsation of justice is not as easilly determined as there is no extant evidence such as tonsilless throats and bareheaded penises, all we have to measure is a growing group of poor people who were once not so.
Thanks, paperback, but like all words, “heresy” has and is undergoing subtle as well as bold transformations. I use the word duely; as a light reference to my rude methods of ** Inquisition **, and to point out the hypocrisy of the judicial creeds that proclaim such high moral standards.
But also thanks paperback, for introducing “words and language” into the discussion, because therein lies the glaring ignorance of those who make our laws and the main tool of self-aggrandising manipulation by our moden day lawyers.
At its heart, I suspect milum believes that law is simply not that complicated - or, to the extent that it is, the complications are needless… that if the law worked correctly, it would be so simple that highly skilled practioners would simply not be necessary.
Is that a fair statement, milum?
*** Yes, Mr. Bricker, yes it is.***