|
Posted by Kris Krieger on April 4, 2007, 6:00 pm
>
>> Pierre Levesque wrote:
>>>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_american_west_
>>>> rethinks_lim.html
>>>
>>> Leave it to George Will to be an expert spokesman on the subject...
>>
>> Why not address the substance of what he said, instead of disparaging
>> him?
>>
>
> Sure. The article is on a subject that is continously debated.
>
> A) Some find it a valid arguement that licensing is required to
> protect the public from abuse and un-professional conduct and
> behaviour among other issues related to the industry itself .
>
> B) Others disagree and feel that the reason for licensing and
> certification exists to "protect" those who work in the industry.
>
> This article opines that the reason is much more B) than A)
>
> That reasoning is a purely political point of view given that it is
> published on a web site called relclearpolitics.com by a mostly
> political commentator named George Will.
>
> My opinion is that those more qualified to have the debate and
> dialogue should be from the industry in question.
>
> There... you happy?
>
>
>
I think that the *principle* is open to debate by anyone. The way your
worded A and B INMO expressed the general issue without being industry
specific, and as such, it's IMO completely valid for anyone to join the
discussion.
To me, both A and B are valid, especially when it comes to areas which
involve health. The main isues would be: Who will establish and oversee
the requirements and process of licensing; and, How much power will the
licensing board have? The latter should not include the power to keep
someone from hiring an unlicensed person, but it should include the
authority to restrict people from advertising as being licensed when they
are not.
Licensing *should* be an indication of a certain level of expertise
and/or specialization, so that a consumer can hire someone with the sort
of expertise he or she needs. Licensing should *not* be used as a way of
forcing consumers to pay for a specialist when they don't need that level
of service/expertise.
Now, what Will calls a "censoring of truthful commercial speech" is not
always merely that - if I, as a consumer, *need* the expertise of a
Medical Specialist as opposed to a General Pratitioner, or a Master
Gardener as opposed to a kid to just mow the lawn, or and INterior
Deisgner as opposed to someone to help me pick out drapes, then I also
should be able to discern between those professionals who have a high
level of training and expertise, and those whose expertise/training might
not be up to the level I need or want. Similarly, if I *don't* need to
hire an (expensive) professional with a lot fo training and expertise, I
should be able to easily find the people whose skills (and fees) are more
in keeping with what I want to have done.
THe main thing is to have a way of being sure that the licensing does not
turn into a way of forcing people to be over-educated for the work they
want to do (or are capable of doing), and also, tht it doesn't turn into
a way of wasting the time of people who *are* specialists by forcing
consumers to *only* hire highly-trained specialists.
To use a medical analogy, if you need to have a couple stitches put in to
close a minor cut on your finger, an RN or a Nurse Practitioner is a
sensible choice. If you need your appendix out, a surgeon is a good
choice. If you have a brain anomoly or tumor, you go to a neurologist or
neurosurgeon. But you do NOT go to a neurosurgeon to have 2 stitches put
into that minor cut on the finger - it's a waste of the neurosurgeon's
time/training, and a waste of your money.
Licensing, in principle, is just a way to differentiate various levels of
knowledge, training, and expertise. Sort of like the difference between
architectual technicians, draftsmen, architectural designers who do
house-sized structures, and architects licensed (specialized/trained) to
build large skyscrapers. It doesn;t mean a person should not be proud of
being good at what he or she does - it's simply that there *are*
spcializations, and ther e*are* different levels of training and
expertise. So to claim that all licensing is nothing more than
"censoring of truthful commercial speech" is IMO irresponsible, and
specious.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap