There are various criticisms of John Lott's research, such as
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885
What is the take of the learned members of this site?
Thanks,
Paul
--
*Paul R Laska*
*PO Box 1423*
*Palm City, FL 34990*
*
*
*772-781-9014 landline*
I'm thinking that you must not have understood the point I made about
professional boundaries and ethical restrictions on them.
To start your comment '“Boundary violation” assumes the conclusion that it’s
proper for the government to set . . .' is completely off the mark. No one is
talking
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Paul Laska dactylographer...@gmail.comwrote:
There are various criticisms of John Lott's research, such as
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885
I started reading this - it is not oriented to a discussion or even
If the argument is simply that you don't want to answer the doctor's questions
about guns, and suspect that your doctor isn't really knowledgeable enough
about guns, I have no quarrel with that. But I understood the argument to be
that such questions should be prohibited by law, or by rules
On Jan 19, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The question on the table is what questions doctors may ask. It doesn't take
much authority to ask questions -- just the same authority (flowing partly
from the First Amendment and partly from just normal liberty) for you to ask
me a
On Jan 19, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
If the argument is simply that you don't want to answer the doctor's
questions about guns, and suspect that your doctor isn't really knowledgeable
enough about guns, I have no quarrel with that. But I understood the
argument to be that
This argument strikes me as oddly similar to many gun control
arguments - because some people may act badly based on certain information, we
should bar them from even asking for that information, even if that means
restricting what would otherwise be constitutionally protected
It seems to me the Miranda principle cuts in precisely the
opposite direction. Recall that Miranda applies only when a police officer
questions a suspect who is in custody. Even though a police officer always has
some degree of coercive authority, non-custodial questioning
If you want to propose that the government be limited in requiring
doctors to provide certain information about patients, that could be perfectly
sensible. But restricting doctors' First Amendment rights to ask questions
because maybe that information will eventually end up in the
This discussion has nearly run its course.
First Amendment rights apply only regarding action by government and not to
ethical restrictions on doctors (since lawyers are also bound by ethical
restrictions on speech, I wonder why Eugene doesn't grasp the point); I haven't
proposed government
10 matches
Mail list logo