Where do you draw the line?
I’d say that an industry with significant health, safety or financial risk should require regulation and licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy.
I’d say that an industry with significant health, safety or financial risk should require regulation and licensing. Your example seems a bit crazy.
It's the credentialing. The pediatrician lacks the credentials of a neurosurgeon. Just as non-doctors lack the credentials to work as a doctor. The hosptial, insurance, and court would all be looking at the credentials.
Licensing is merely a subset of the larger credentialing world. Even in your doctor example, the license is not the issue - board certification of a specialty would be the issue.
How?
"Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them."
The way that most credentialing is used for employment.
Not all credentials are licenses, but all licenses are credentials.
You can look up some definitions if you want. I'm done with this conversation as you are so set on arguing a tangent without an open mind.
License: a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade
Credential: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.
Sure, you can characterize the license as an achievement. But it's really just a license.
Maybe, maybe not, but its 100% a qualification, so its definitely a credential.
This isn’t the case everywhere. Where I am (New Zealand) each doctor has a scope of practice. You work within your scope. There may be conditions placed on a scope of practice too (eg supervision is required).
You can look up every doctor’s scope of practice and get a short summary of their training on the medical council website.
Other health professions follow a similar model.
That’s what’s being argued here and other systems have it. It seems an obvious thing.