Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 9705714" data-attributes="member: 19675">A perceived need is typically the basis for initiating the law drafting process.  Usually- but not always- that need is factually based.  Everything else follows after.Optics are always an issue, certainly, but they’re lower priority than whether a law will achieve the desired goal.“We aren’t legislators” is the glib response.  Of course legislators are human, and will go through similar discussions as we’ve done here.  But it definitely won’t be on the record.The fact that untrained individuals are at a severe disadvantage in understanding medical advice is extremely well documented, over centuries, worldwide.  Public health measures have saved more humans than pharmaceuticals & surgeries combined, and yet they’re the area in which there’s the most pushback- even among experts.  Think variolation against smallpox in Boston in the 1700s.  Or the mid-1800s London cholera outbreak linked to contaminated water pumps.  Or mask wearing against airborne diseases.  Or hand washing for doctors (and then everyone else).  Sterilization of surgical equipment.  Indoor plumbing.Nonspecialized AIs dispensing medical advice is every bit as much a public health issue as any of those.</blockquote>