 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / February 2004Here's one for our resident lawyer and it's on topic as well
Just wondering, How come diveshops and scuba manufacturers give us the line that they can't sell parts to divers because of "liability reasons" and yet I can go down to my local Napa and buy parts to service my vehicle? How open to successful litigation are companies like Abyss or DiveRite that do sell parts to divers? Brian Edmonton, Alberta www.mossmanscubaventures.com > Just wondering, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to successful litigation are companies like Abyss or DiveRite that do > sell parts to divers? For that matter, what's up with the FDA (and your Great White Northern equivalent) telling us what parts we can buy to service our own bodies? It's ridiculous that a handful of quacks have ultimate authority over the wealth of medications we can use to make ourselves whole again. >> Just wondering, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It's ridiculous that a handful of quacks have ultimate authority over the >wealth of medications we can use to make ourselves whole again. You're comparing someone who went through as much or more formal education, training, and internship as you did to someone who sat through a 1/2-hour manufacturer's seminar on overhauling a reg? You really are not giving medical and legal professionals enough credit. --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ > You're comparing someone who went through as much or more formal > education, training, and internship as you did to someone who sat > through a 1/2-hour manufacturer's seminar on overhauling a reg? Pharmacology. It ain't rocket science. > You really are not giving medical and legal professionals enough > credit. Laypersons have the option of representing themselves or hiring a lawyer. Patients don't have the option of "representing" themselves when it comes to prescription medicines. I can't get antibiotics, high-potency anti-inflammatories, or even Viagra without first paying a doctor. Talking about a monopoly. > Laypersons have the option of representing themselves or hiring a lawyer. > Patients don't have the option of "representing" themselves when it comes to > prescription medicines. I can't get antibiotics, high-potency > anti-inflammatories, or even Viagra without first paying a doctor. Talking > about a monopoly. Shall I forward a small fraction of the spam email I get each day to you??? :)  Signature"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell > Shall I forward a small fraction of the spam email I get each day to > you??? :) Funny thing you should mention that. They arrested one of the on line drug providers for improper dispensing of controlled substances. It seems they thought that an online doctor asking a few questions was not enough of a basis for perscribing drugs. The perpetrators were from my part of the state. Lee >>Shall I forward a small fraction of the spam email I get each day to >>you??? :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > basis for perscribing drugs. The perpetrators were from my part of the > state. Oh....I just thought Greg my want to increase his cup size. Signature"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell >>> Shall I forward a small fraction of the spam email I get each day to >>> you??? :) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Oh....I just thought Greg my want to increase his cup size. ^^ might Signature"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell >> Shall I forward a small fraction of the spam email I get each day to >> you??? :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >basis for perscribing drugs. The perpetrators were from my part of the >state. Did they know Rush? > > You're comparing someone who went through as much or more formal > > education, training, and internship as you did to someone who sat [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anti-inflammatories, or even Viagra without first paying a doctor. Talking > about a monopoly. do you need viagra? -- Don't like the looks of nudists? Complain to the manufacturer. if he removes his spam filter he can get all the Viagra he wants > > > You're comparing someone who went through as much or more formal > > > education, training, and internship as you did to someone who sat [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Don't like the looks of nudists? Complain to the manufacturer. Signature--Chandler -- May Hog be your boatman when you reach the River Styx > Laypersons have the option of representing themselves or hiring a > lawyer. Patients don't have the option of "representing" themselves > when it comes to prescription medicines. I can't get antibiotics, > high-potency anti-inflammatories, or even Viagra without first paying > a doctor. Talking about a monopoly. I believe there's a saying about those that represent themselves, something about having a fool for a client. In my limited experience, that's held true. Sure, I can represent myself, but I've not noticed that I had a lot of luck being treated equally when I did. On the other hand, every time I've hired an attorney, I've prevailed. We're tlaking traffic court here. I've never, personally, known anybody foolish enough to defend themselves in criminal court. Further, I can tell you that, research things as I did, and purchase forms as I also did, my attempt to create a valid power of attorney (I left out the word "durable") and my attempt at doing my own quit claim deed so my ex wife could transfer her interest in my house (I left out the words "a single woman"), both failed. I can take drugs, but I can't get the same level of drugs that a doctor can provide. I can represent myself, but I can't get the same level of representation that an attorney can provide. Seems to me, both are a bit of a monopoly. The specialized nature of the professions suggests that's not such a bad thing. If you want to talk about unreasonable monopolies, let's talk about the diamond industry. I don't think there's ever been an industry so completely controlled by so small a core group . . . except, perhaps the dive equipment repair business. Scuba Pro won't even let unauthorized people sell their damned equipment. Lee > I can take drugs, but I can't get the same level of drugs that a doctor can > provide. I can represent myself, but I can't get the same level of > representation that an attorney can provide. Seems to me, both are a bit of > a monopoly. The specialized nature of the professions suggests that's not > such a bad thing. Of course you can get the same level of representation that an attorney can provide if you took the time and effort and possessed the ability to digest the curricula of a law school education plus the specific law of your cases. Prisoners do it quite often. They have lots of time. I certainly don't claim to have the equivalent of a medical school education, but I do have a bachelor's in physiology and I've read medical and pharmacology textbooks. I know enough to know the method of action of a particular drug on the body and its side effects, proper dosage, and other concerns. The information doctors would research to find out this information (PDR, etc.) is readily accesible by the public just as legal references are available to the public at any law library. The difference is that after reading up on your case, you can walk over to the clerk's window, plunk down the filing fee, and file your complaint. You don't need a bar number unless you're representing someone else. What you can't do is read up on Viagra, then walk over to the pharmacy, plunk down some cash, and walk away with a bottle of little blue pills. For that you need a DEA number and a layperson can't get a DEA number. That's why it's much more of a monopoly than the legal profession. > If you want to talk about unreasonable monopolies, let's talk about the > diamond industry. I don't think there's ever been an industry so completely > controlled by so small a core group . . . except, perhaps the dive equipment > repair business. Scuba Pro won't even let unauthorized people sell their > damned equipment. At least you don't have to be licensed by the government to sell dive gear. >> I can take drugs, but I can't get the same level of drugs that a >> doctor can provide. I can represent myself, but I can't get the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the specific law of your cases. Prisoners do it quite often. They > have lots of time. The biggest problem I've encountered in trying to be my own lawyer is the lack of respect I get from the judge. You say "this is how the law reads" and you get listened to. I said it and was found guilty anyway. Lucky for me, it only took a traffic ticket to learn. > At least you don't have to be licensed by the government to sell dive > gear. You do if you want to purchase your inventory free of sales tax. Lee > The biggest problem I've encountered in trying to be my own lawyer is the > lack of respect I get from the judge. You say "this is how the law reads" > and you get listened to. I said it and was found guilty anyway. Lucky for > me, it only took a traffic ticket to learn. Why do you think they don't behave that way to attorneys? Many judges enjoy humiliating the poor attorney who dares to make a mistake in front of his honor. And judges certainly don't always rule correctly even when there's an attorney to demonstrate how the law applies to the case. Some judges aren't too bright. Do you really think that the brightest ones are assigned to traffic court? >> The biggest problem I've encountered in trying to be my own lawyer >> is the lack of respect I get from the judge. You say "this is how >> the law reads" and you get listened to. I said it and was found >> guilty anyway. Lucky for me, it only took a traffic ticket to learn. > Why do you think they don't behave that way to attorneys? Because I'm observant. In traffic court, I've yet to be the ony one there. Some come with attorneys and some don't. Some walk away free and clear, and some don't. Also because I've tried it both ways, just to confirm what observation had shown. > Many judges enjoy humiliating the poor attorney who dares to make a > mistake in front of his honor. And judges certainly don't always > rule correctly even when there's an attorney to demonstrate how the > law applies to the case. Some judges aren't too bright. Do you > really think that the brightest ones are assigned to traffic court? No, I figure they're the ones that were most recently attorneys. Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Because I'm observant. In traffic court, I've yet to be the ony one there. :Some come with attorneys and some don't. Some walk away free and clear, and :some don't. Also because I've tried it both ways, just to confirm what :observation had shown. Perhaps if you emulated the visiting French Canadians you wouldn't be in traffic court so often. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > Perhaps if you emulated the visiting French Canadians you wouldn't be > in traffic court so often. More likely I'd be dead. The one I almost hit came real close. You do recall the discussion of Jeep Cherokee and compact car, right? Lee > "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps if you emulated the visiting French Canadians you wouldn't be > in traffic court so often. ROFLMAO!! > Perhaps if you emulated the visiting French Canadians you wouldn't be > in traffic court so often. What does having carnal knowledge of a caribou have to do with keeping him out of traffic court? > The biggest problem I've encountered in trying to be my own lawyer is the > lack of respect I get from the judge. You say "this is how the law reads" > and you get listened to. I said it and was found guilty anyway. Lucky for > me, it only took a traffic ticket to learn. I had a traffic ticket a few years ago where I decided to fight it... Didn't figure it was going to do me any good, but I had some spare time and was bored... I researched all the ways that a radar unit might give incorrect results and found out all the questions that I should ask the officer... Radar can be inaccurate in areas of strong electromagnetic interference like underneath power lines... The officer was parked directly underneath a major electrical transmission line going to a substation... I know that this has to interfere with radar since it also sets off my radar detector... I asked the officer to list the things that might cause interference with his radar unit... He lists a lot of items and one of them was "power lines"... So, I reinterated this with him... I asked him where he had parked his vehicle... He gave the location... I asked him, "So, right underneath the major transmission lines to the electrical substation beside the highway?"... His response was, "Well, you can't go anywhere in Houston without being near a power line"... The judge then told me that I was not allowed to bring the accuracy of the radar units into question in the trial... Without being able to bring it into question, it was basically his word against mine (Texas cops aren't required to let you see the radar unit's display -- not that this means anything anyway)... It seemed obvious to me that if he sets up a radar trap in a location that they teach them to not set one up due to inaccurate results, he wouldn't have a case and I would win... The judge said that I could appeal his ruling about not being able to bring the accuracy of the radar unit into question, but I would have to post a bond and file an appeal to the next court level... I think the appeal wouldn't have even been in Houston, so I decided that I didn't have *that* much free time... Of course, the judge found be guilty... A tax on the use of the roads is all the speeding laws are anyway... When they raised the speed limits in Houston a few years back, all of a sudden, Houston had a defecit... Nawh, speeding tickets are for safety, not for revenue... Not very fuckin' likely !!! > > I can take drugs, but I can't get the same level of drugs that a doctor > can [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > number and a layperson can't get a DEA number. That's why it's much more of > a monopoly than the legal profession. My guess is that drugs like Viagra will eventually become over-the-counter, just like ibuprofen and Claritin, which once were prescribed. The thinking is that if all drugs were available without prescription there would be many deaths from improper drug use. Adam > My guess is that drugs like Viagra will eventually become over-the-counter, > just like ibuprofen and Claritin, which once were prescribed. The thinking > is that if all drugs were available without prescription there would be many > deaths from improper drug use. And the thinking is that if all defendants represented themselves there'd be many more convictions of innocent people. Therefore, the judge has discretion in criminal cases to declare a defendant incompetent and mandate attorney representation. The pharmacist could act as judge and verify the proposed usage of the medication when it is dispensed like they should be doing in any case. It's my understanding that certain dosages of ibuprofen and naproxen (over 200mg) still require prescriptions even though a layperson could figure out that taking several smaller OTC pills gives the same prescription result. The same used to be true with the histamine antagonist antacids like Pepcid, with 10mg legal OTC but 20mg requiring a prescription. Duh! The FDA gave J&J/Merck their approval for 20mg Pepcid in September. It would be especially nice to assemble a comprehensive first-aid kit for remote dive travel and such, but the need to constantly pay doctors to write prescriptions for the ever-expiring drugs makes it cost prohibitive. That could be harmful to the traveler who must otherwise rely on slow reponse and/or obsolent treatments in remote locales. >>My guess is that drugs like Viagra will eventually become > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > could be harmful to the traveler who must otherwise rely on slow reponse > and/or obsolent treatments in remote locales. Isn't the real reason behind making drugs available over the counter is so that insurance companies no longer have to cover them in their plans? > Isn't the real reason behind making drugs available over the counter is > so that insurance companies no longer have to cover them in their plans? That was certainly the issue with Claritin. >>Isn't the real reason behind making drugs available over the counter is >>so that insurance companies no longer have to cover them in their plans? > > That was certainly the issue with Claritin. So, I guess that is the one I was talking about.... > > Isn't the real reason behind making drugs available over the counter is > > so that insurance companies no longer have to cover them in their plans? > > That was certainly the issue with Claritin. Maybe, but generic Claritin is now so cheap the price is no longer an issue. Adam > > > Isn't the real reason behind making drugs available over the counter is > > > so that insurance companies no longer have to cover them in their plans? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Adam Hmmm... I wonder if this is because insurance won't cover them anymore... It also begs the question, if the government were to stop paying for any medications, maybe the companies producing them would lower their prices so the average person could afford them more easily. I wouldn't want to test that out, but it is an interesting idea... > > My guess is that drugs like Viagra will eventually become > over-the-counter, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > proposed usage of the medication when it is dispensed like they should be > doing in any case. For that to take place the pharamacist would become the doctor, doing an assessment of each patient to decide if the drug was appopriate. The fact is while there may be some people who can treat themselves it is not wise even for them, while many would end up taking innaproporate medication, wthout adequate assessment, lab tests ets. Even doctors themselves are not advised to prescribe drugs for themselves. Nevertheless many of the prescription drugs could be made available safely with a simple handout. Adam >For that to take place the pharamacist would become the doctor, doing an >assessment of each patient to decide if the drug was appopriate. Like in Mexico :) --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ > >For that to take place the pharamacist would become the doctor, doing an > >assessment of each patient to decide if the drug was appopriate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- Rich > http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ Pharmacists are more knowledgeable than doctors when it comes to medicine. Nurses are more knowledgeable when it comes to care of patients. But its the goddamed doctor that gets all the money. >>>For that to take place the pharamacist would become the doctor, doing an >>>assessment of each patient to decide if the drug was appopriate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nurses are more knowledgeable when it comes to care of patients. But its the > goddamed doctor that gets all the money. That may be true in Canada, as a rule that is not true here in the states. If I am sick I want my doctor running my treatment not some nurse. > >>>For that to take place the pharamacist would become the doctor, doing an > >>>assessment of each patient to decide if the drug was appopriate. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > states. If I am sick I want my doctor running my treatment not some > nurse. I wouldn't say that so absolutely. My daughter was recently in the hospital for kidney failure. She was in severe pain, and the doctor fely tylenol would be enough. The nurse had to remind him that a) Tylenol wasn't really strong enough and b) Tylenol can cause kidney problems. It seems the doctor hadn't put the two together. If I had to choose between between a hospital with excellent nurses and mediocre doctors or the other way around, I'd take the excellent nurses any day. > Pharmacology. It ain't rocket science. Better living through chemistry? >>Pharmacology. It ain't rocket science. > > Better living through chemistry? Been there, done that. Got the shirt, and wore it out. It ain't "better". > For that matter, what's up with the FDA (and your Great White Northern > equivalent) telling us what parts we can buy to service our own bodies? > It's ridiculous that a handful of quacks have ultimate authority over the > wealth of medications we can use to make ourselves whole again. Nice f.cking hijack. Brian Edmonton, Alberta |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.