Doctor(s) Getting Rich Off Medical Exemptions

[owlegrad]

I disagree that they are actively risking spreading a known infection. The person who agrees to engage in unprotected sex with someone whose HIV status they don't know for certainty is the one actively taking a risk. I know we disagree on this point... so I'll let it go.

It sounds like you draw the line at once someone already has acquired the infection and knows they have the infection, and at that point the government can start to regulate their actions and restrict their freedoms. That seems kind of arbitrary and ineffective in actually controlling the spread of disease.

I agree with your main point, but I think it would be fair to point out the information asymmetry in your example. Both parties are risking infection but one party is aware of the actual risk while the other party is aware of a theoretical risk. Who should be more liable? I really don't have an answer for that. I do not see how the government should be involved in a case like this under a libertarian worldview point though. It's entirely up to the individuals what their risk tolerances should be, as far as I can tell.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

I disagree that they are actively risking spreading a known infection. The person who agrees to engage in unprotected sex with someone whose HIV status they don't know for certainty is the one actively taking a risk. I know we disagree on this point... so I'll let it go.

It sounds like you draw the line at once someone already has acquired the infection and knows they have the infection, and at that point the government can start to regulate their actions and restrict their freedoms. That seems kind of arbitrary and ineffective in actually controlling the spread of disease.

We seem to have some pretty fundamental differences in what we think govt role is in our lives

 

[beautifulrobot]

We seem to have some pretty fundamental differences in what we think govt role is in our lives

For sure. I am actually surprised that you think the government should regulate HIV disclosure to sexual partners. I am still scratching my head as to why this is something you're ok with the government throwing people in prison for.

 

[beautifulrobot]

I agree with your main point, but I think it would be fair to point out the information asymmetry in your example. Both parties are risking infection but one party is aware of the actual risk while the other party is aware of a theoretical risk. Who should be more liable? I really don't have an answer for that. I do not see how the government should be involved in a case like this under a libertarian worldview point though. It's entirely up to the individuals what their risk tolerances should be, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for better articulating what was on my mind - regardless of who has more liability, i don't really understand how it makes sense for a libertarian government to be involved in such a case.

 

[KennethCool]

Can pharmacists write these exemptions if they have an NPI number? If we have to screen patients for contraindications, then surely we should be able to write an exemption.

 

[deleted480308]

Thanks for better articulating what was on my mind - regardless of who has more liability, i don't really understand how it makes sense for a libertarian government to be involved in such a case.

In the same way I can’t tell you I’m selling lemonade and just fill the cup with antifreeze. If you claim a safe status that you know to be untrue you should be held liable for it.

But again, we clearly disagree

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

In the same way I can’t tell you I’m selling lemonade and just fill the cup with antifreeze. If you claim a safe status that you know to be untrue you should be held liable for it.

But again, we clearly disagree

This I think is key here.

To continue the analogy, if you set up a stand advertising "Cups of Liquid" and no claims beyond that I'd be less inclined to favor prosecution/liability if someone drank said liquid and got sick from it.

 

[beautifulrobot]

In the same way I can’t tell you I’m selling lemonade and just fill the cup with antifreeze. If you claim a safe status that you know to be untrue you should be held liable for it.

But again, we clearly disagree

I thought you didn't like the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Wouldn't the free market take care of all the anti-freeze lemonade stands? Why would you need the government to hold people liable for selling toxic products? That's the part about "holding someone liable for lying to me and having the government punish them for me" that doesn't make sense to me. If I knew you liked government regulations to begin with, this conversation would be very different.

I also disagree that personal relationships carry the same kind of implied contract as business transactions. The only time I think the government should interfere with people's personal relationships is when physical violence or child endangerment is involved. Otherwise, people cheat and lie to each other (in non-business related matters) all the time in ways that can be devastating, but is part of the inherent risk of pursuing personal relationships. I wouldn't expect the government to imprison my spouse for cheating on me and causing me emotional distress. The only way your analogy would make sense to me is if you thought there was no shared liability between the two sexual partners (which we already established we disagree on), and you thought that non-disclosure of HIV status was (always) an act of aggression/violence (you haven't said as much, but comparing it to tricking someone to drink antifreeze is telling).

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I thought you didn't like the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Wouldn't the free market take care of all the anti-freeze lemonade stands? Why would you need the government to hold people liable for selling toxic products? That's the part about "holding someone liable for lying to me and having the government punish them for me" that doesn't make sense to me. If I knew you liked government regulations to begin with, this conversation would be very different.

I also disagree that personal relationships carry the same kind of implied contract as business transactions. The only time I think the government should interfere with people's personal relationships is when physical violence or child endangerment is involved. Otherwise, people cheat and lie to each other (in non-business related matters) all the time in ways that can be devastating, but is part of the inherent risk of pursuing personal relationships. I wouldn't expect the government to imprison my spouse for cheating on me and causing me emotional distress. The only way your analogy would make sense to me is if you thought there was no shared liability between the two sexual partners (which we already established we disagree on), and you thought that non-disclosure of HIV status was (always) an act of aggression/violence (you haven't said as much, but comparing it to tricking someone to drink antifreeze is telling).

Its not the lying part that the government needs to deal with, its the results of said lie - in this case, antifreeze poisoning.

 

[deleted480308]

I thought you didn't like the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Wouldn't the free market take care of all the anti-freeze lemonade stands? Why would you need the government to hold people liable for selling toxic products? That's the part about "holding someone liable for lying to me and having the government punish them for me" that doesn't make sense to me. If I knew you liked government regulations to begin with, this conversation would be very different.

I also disagree that personal relationships carry the same kind of implied contract as business transactions. The only time I think the government should interfere with people's personal relationships is when physical violence or child endangerment is involved. Otherwise, people cheat and lie to each other (in non-business related matters) all the time in ways that can be devastating, but is part of the inherent risk of pursuing personal relationships. I wouldn't expect the government to imprison my spouse for cheating on me and causing me emotional distress. The only way your analogy would make sense to me is if you thought there was no shared liability between the two sexual partners (which we already established we disagree on), and you thought that non-disclosure of HIV status was (always) an act of aggression/violence (you haven't said as much, but comparing it to tricking someone to drink antifreeze is telling).

My argument isn’t that the govt needs to guarantee safety, but if what you are advertising isn’t what you are selling you are breaching a contract. I don’t care if you sell antifreeze and someone wants to buy antifreeze.

 

[beautifulrobot]

My argument isn’t that the govt needs to guarantee safety, but if what you are advertising isn’t what you are selling you are breaching a contract. I don’t care if you sell antifreeze and someone wants to buy antifreeze.

What if I don't know that there is antifreeze in the lemonade I am selling? Am I still liable for breaching a contract?

I generally agree with you that government intervention is indicated when it comes to false claims in business transactions involving a well-defined written contract and terms of service (e.g., I make a claim that I am selling you antifreeze-free lemonade, but in fact I knowingly diluted the lemonade with antifreeze), but not so much when it comes to how honest people are with each other in their personal affairs. Maybe if there is a well-defined written contract between two people regarding their personal affairs, but even then, that should be a civil law issue, not a criminal law issue.

 

[deleted480308]

What if I don't know that there is antifreeze in the lemonade I am selling? Am I still liable for breaching a contract?

I generally agree with you that government intervention is indicated when it comes to false claims in business transactions involving a well-defined written contract and terms of service (e.g., I make a claim that I am selling you antifreeze-free lemonade, but in fact I knowingly diluted the lemonade with antifreeze), but not so much when it comes to how honest people are with each other in their personal affairs. Maybe if there is a well-defined written contract between two people regarding their personal affairs, but even then, that should be a civil law issue, not a criminal law issue.

When dealing with deadly diseases and intentionally falsifying your status, we disagree

 

[PBA Princess]

It’s mostly rich people in California who choose not to vaccinate, so the $1200 per year is probably a drop in the bucket to them anyway...

 

[Sparda29]

Vaccinate or get deported to Antarctica.

 

[BidingMyTime]

A libertarian society can only work if people are required to be honest with each other, in matters that could cause the other person or their property physician harm.

Now how that honesty can be enforced can be problematic when dealing with personal issues. In the case of one person with HIV not disclosing to another, how does one prove it? A person could disclose it to their partner, and later after they break-up, their partner in their heartbreak goes for a one-night stand, gets HIV from that, but then lies and says their original partner never disclosed. Or maybe it's a scenario where the partner did not disclose, the person gets HIV, after they break-up they have a 1 night stand, and then assume they got HIV from the o1 night stand not disclosing, when it was actually their original partner.

It would seem to prevent this, a written (or at least videotaped oral) contract would be necessary between all partners. Maybe this is necessary in our society. But I really don't like that idea. Personal relationships are not economic contracts (at least not normally!)