Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Strange but True (SB 828)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree that the public's interest and the PROFESSIONAL's interest should be
and, I believe, are the same. Let's look at another example though where
this may appear to be true but actually not.

Socialized medicine.

Say our "wonderful" government (i.e., Her Highness, Hillary) decides
socialized medicine would be in the best interest of the general public. She
mandates that every one shall be enrolled in a medical program, whether they
can afford it or not. Our taxes go up to pay for this program (of course
because they _never_ go down). All of a sudden, there is a shortage of
doctors. To compensate for this, either the medical schools have to drop
their standards to let more students in and to graduate or this wondrous
program is modified so that non-MDs are allowed to perform certain
procedures that are here-to-for reserved for the MDs.

Now, some would say that this IS in the public's interest because people who
had not been able to get medical attention now can. All I will say is that
the medical attention I get now is going to be downgraded. Hmmm, Mexico has
socialized medicine, let's use that model!!

While I love my country, I don't trust my government and I have ZERO faith
in any activity the government does under the guise of "public safety".

Bill Allen
(the cynic)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert McGhie <robert0(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Friday, October 31, 1997 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Strange but True (SB 828)

>At 12:28 PM 10/31/97 -0800, Bill Allen wrote:
>>You seem to have a real interest in the politics of CA while admitting to
>>having no professional interests in what goes on out here. I seriously
>>doubt, based on the TX PE laws, that TX will use this CA legislation as a
>>model. You (probably) have nothing to worry about.
>>Whatever the actual impact of SB 828 may have on engineers in CA, it
>>doesn't matter since (a) Gov Wilson has already signed it into law (b) and
>>we engineers probably wouldn't have done anything about it anyway.
>>This legislation does indicate that the trend is going away from (rather
>>than going towards) protecting the PROFESSIONALS. What else is new?
>>I guess things in TX are going so well, you need to get us "riled up" out
>>here in CA. Maybe you should start a SEAoT listserv.
>>Bill Allen
>>(the cynic)
>I write to correct a possible misconception. The purpose of legislation
>regulating engineers and the practice of engineering, as well as other
>professions and professionals, was NEVER to protect the "professionals".
>state's only legitimate interest in such regulations is to protect the
>public, which is as it should be. This does not mean that the regulated
>professionals should not be concerned when changes are made that would
>lessen the requirements on those authorized to practice the profession. But
>the question is whether or not the change reduces public protection from
>those who are not qualified or merely eliminates an unnecessary regulation
>or restriction. To the extent some members of the engineering profession
>sought protection of the monopoly, merely for their own personal interest,
>as Chuck seems to say the legislature found, they were rightly rebuked.
>We should, of course, remain vigilant because, for the most part, the
>public's interests and the interests of our profession are not at odds but
>coincide, In fact, it can be persuasively argued that the primary purpose
>our profession is public protection. However, pretending to represent the
>public interest, when viewed as thinly disguised efforts to enhance
>gain or further one's personal agenda, merely ruins credibility. Therefore,
>we should exercise caution, least our own credibility also be tarnished.
>Robert McGhie, SE