Reason TV: State Licensure for Training

[Culican]

, but I doubt that every single field on planet E-Arth is corrupted and controlled by incompetent people. This hasn't been my experience, at least, so take that for whatever that might have been worth at one point in time.

There is more incompetence than you realize. Friend of mine in another texted me a photo of her cat wth a big nodule on it's nose. Asked, "What the hell is this? Veterinarian thinks it's blah blah blah and gave him predinsolone but he is getting worse." I texted back, "Feline cryptococcosis, google it and hit images." She did and went back to the vet suggesting that she test for cryptococcal antigen. The vet reluctantly ordered that and also sent some aspirate from the lesion in for examination. The cat had, yes, feline cryptococcosis. But it doesn't end there. The vet prescribed itraconazole at 10 times the proper dose and almost killed the cat.

Now, I am not a vet but I did have a cat 15 years ago with the disease. My cat had no nodule but I remembered seeing the pictures of them 15 years ago. Should the vet have known what it was. Yes because cryptococcosis is the most common systemic mycotic infection in domestic cats. Unlike humans that usually only get it if they are immunocompromised, healthy cats get it easily.

The vet was... incompetent. I mean to point out that the veterinarian in question was fully licensed by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. Said licensure did absolutely nothing to ensure quality.

[Scaldrew]

There is more incompetence than you realize. Friend of mine in another texted me a photo of her cat wth a big nodule on it's nose. Asked, "What the hell is this? Veterinarian thinks it's blah blah blah and gave him predinsolone but he is getting worse." I texted back, "Feline cryptococcosis, google it and hit images." She did and went back to the vet suggesting that she test for cryptococcal antigen. The vet reluctantly ordered that and also sent some aspirate from the lesion in for examination. The cat had, yes, feline cryptococcosis. But it doesn't end there. The vet prescribed itraconazole at 10 times the proper dose and almost killed the cat.

Now, I am not a vet but I did have a cat 15 years ago with the disease. My cat had no nodule but I remembered seeing the pictures of them 15 years ago. Should the vet have known what it was. Yes because cryptococcosis is the most common systemic mycotic infection in domestic cats. Unlike humans that usually only get it if they are immunocompromised, healthy cats get it easily.

The vet was... incompetent.

That's a terribly sad story, but it remains an anecdote. Sounds like a really shitty vet, to be sure, but I'd need a little more data to conclude that the veterinarian occupation is plagued by incompetence. You're right about there being more than I realise, though. I mean, I can't know about every single field imaginable and to what degree they are incompetent, so that can only be right.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The point, of course, is not that there is incompetence in any particular field. There obviously always will be. But does State Licensure mitigate this, to what extent, and at what cost? Further, and perhaps more importantly, to what extent does State Licensure disarm the consumer's normal tendency toward critical evaluation by usurping that capacity for itself? The general public does not see a State License as a minimum baseline of competence, but rather as a guarantee of expertise.

[Scaldrew]

Completely agree with that. The last thing I want to see is government-run fitness programmes and restrictions on how coaches teach people how to lift weights.

[Pluripotent]

The point, of course, is not that there is incompetence in any particular field. There obviously always will be. But does State Licensure mitigate this, to what extent, and at what cost? Further, and perhaps more importantly, to what extent does State Licensure disarm the consumer's normal tendency toward critical evaluation by usurping that capacity for itself? The general public does not see a State License as a minimum baseline of competence, but rather as a guarantee of expertise.

There will always be some measure of basic competence in medicine. But there is no reason to believe it should be done by the state, and lots of reasons why it shouldn't be, not least of which being that they don't know what they're doing. This is really what medical associations should be doing, rather than harassing their members and acting as tax collectors. But, alas, we abandoned that model a long time ago, and power, once lost, is going to prove very difficult to regain, if it's possible at all.

[Jeff Leonard]

The general public does not see a State License as a minimum baseline of competence, but rather as a guarantee of expertise.

^^^This a million times. I am in the contracting business, and the entire system of permits and inspections and licensing is a farce, it is mostly a money grab by the local governments with little to no guarantee of quality AT ALL. But because the consumer thinks if their is no permit, or heaven forbid a contractor isn't licensed, Armageddon is upon us. It would be the same thing if the fitness industry falls under this curse. You think Anytime Fitness or Planet Fitness are a joke, think again, they will be the ones people will look to.

[George Christiansen]

The point, of course, is not that there is incompetence in any particular field. There obviously always will be. But does State Licensure mitigate this, to what extent, and at what cost? Further, and perhaps more importantly, to what extent does State Licensure disarm the consumer's normal tendency toward critical evaluation by usurping that capacity for itself? The general public does not see a State License as a minimum baseline of competence, but rather as a guarantee of expertise.

And even more importantly, is there enough ignorance and incompetence in any particular field, like the fitness industry, where the requirement for State Licensure could bar the people and practices that actually work best.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Occupational licensing rules are holding back people who want to work

[dmgetz]

and perhaps more importantly,[/I] to what extent does State Licensure disarm the consumer's normal tendency toward critical evaluation by usurping that capacity for itself? The general public does not see a State License as a minimum baseline of competence, but rather as a guarantee of expertise.

This is exactly my issue, and very well stated.

Too often, people seem to willing to abdicate their responsibilities because they put government up on a pedestal and act as if their rules and guidelines are infallible and handed down from on high, rather than crafted by bureaucrats who, like anyone else in the world, can be wrong. That's not to say that the government is always wrong in its guidelines, or inherently doomed to be wrong in all cases, just that it deserves the kind of scrutiny people are (generally) inclined to give to other sources of information.

Most of us grow up and apply this scrutiny to sources of authority we once trusted wholly and that hopefully at one point gave us good advice - parents, churches, older siblings, etc - but for reasons that remain unclear to me, a great number of adults still think it makes sense for the government to dictate who can cut hair, hang window signs, or give tours. This is nonsense when you think about it, and I think there are few better ways to help people realize that than to show them an example of an arena where the government professes expertise, though it is readily apparent it posses little or none.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

And even more importantly, is there enough ignorance and incompetence in any particular field, like the fitness industry, where the requirement for State Licensure could bar the people and practices that actually work best.

I think it would certainly force a lot of good people out of the business. I can speak for myself and probably many other SSCs (as well as some competent crossfit coaches, trainers, etc) that I'd probably shut down my coaching practice before I'd change my methodology to some bullshit I know didn't work / wasn't helping people. It would simply depend upon the nature of the regulation. I could probably stomach having to take people through some sort of non-sensical "assessment" but I couldn't stomach having to take them through a non-sensical prescription to be considered "legal." I think people like me would probably be forced into a 100% online type of business where we were limited to selling information products only. This is unfortunate because for many people information products aren't enough. Coaches bridge the gap between text and movement and we're in short enough supply as it is