[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but yes.

If you think otherwise, please explain what you think makes doctors and lawyers different. I mean, more than "I don't see that being the same as writing prescriptions." WHY is that not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand your question. If the question is as follows:

How is ignoring a doctors advice and being able to requisition any drug you want different from not having a prescriptions?

The answer is they're really not different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question is:

How is ignoring a doctors advice different from ignoring a lawyer's advice?

That's easy, you can't take any medicine you feel like while you do have the right to represent yourself in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We know what the legal status quo is, the question is to find the JUSTIFICATION for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely commented on the story that:

a) I haven't heard both sides of the story yet.

b) That undertaking illegal activities is risky and undertaking risks has a downside.

c) a) and b) make this an unremarkable story.


I think we're getting to the real point of natedogg's post i.e. the argument as to whether or not medicine and medical care should be regulated in the U.S. the way it is. Of course this includes the idea of doctors issuing prescriptions for drugs.

Not sure why I've been appointed by the posters in this thread as the one to defend the government's position and the U.S. laws regarding drugs and medicine. I suppose it's due to the fact that I don't feel particularly outraged by a one-sided account but that seems ridiculous on it's face.