SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dietetics-dianetics,-what's-the-difference dept.
The judge noted that the "health coach" was free to offer pro bono advice.
A federal court on Wednesday rejected claims by an unlicensed "health coach" that the unqualified health advice she provided to paying clients was protected speech under the First Amendment.
In rejecting her claim, the court affirmed that states do indeed have the right to require that anyone charging for health and medical services - in this case, dietetics and nutrition advice - be qualified and licensed. (State laws governing who can offer personalized nutrition services vary considerably, however.)
Heather Del Castillo, a "holistic health coach" based in Florida, brought the case in October of 2017 shortly after she was busted in an undercover investigation by the state health department. At the time, Del Castillo was running a health-coaching business called Constitution Nutrition, which offered a personalized, six-month health and dietary program. The program involved 13 in-home consulting sessions, 12 of which cost $95 each.
Under a Florida state law called the Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act (DNPA), anyone offering such services needs to be qualified and licensed to protect against bogus advice that could cause significant harms. Those qualifications include having a bachelor's or graduate degree in a relevant field, such as nutrition, from an accredited institution; having at least 900 hours of education or experience approved by the state's Board of Medicine; and passing the state's licensing exam.
Del Castillo had completed none of those things. Her only credential for providing health services was a certificate from an unaccredited, for-profit online school called the Institution for Integrative Nutrition. Otherwise, she had a bachelor's degree in geography and a master's in education. [...]
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @01:48AM (17 children)
Let the inane comments flow.
I'm particularly interested in the arguments on the line of 'there ain't such a thing as actionable speech, blame those that listen, believe and act on any speech'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:03AM (6 children)
Maybe you could ask Ms. Del Castillo for nutrition advice about eating popcorn that would make you funny instead of ... well, c0lo.
^^^ The above comment is free speech. If you are offended by it it's your fault for reading it.
^^^ The above comment was requested by the OP.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday July 22 2019, @02:06AM (2 children)
But the question is, are you qualified to supply it? Credentials needed! (And none of this nonsense about how you went to AC college! Soylentils know that is not a real school!)
(Score: 5, Funny) by istartedi on Monday July 22 2019, @08:35AM (1 child)
AC college may not be real, but DC colleges are. [wikipedia.org]. As long as he keeps current in his field, we should respect him.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 22 2019, @12:09PM
You could say: he's so twisted the more current he keeps, the more magnetically attractive he is.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @02:24AM
I won't object if you pay the "consulting sessions" to the tune of "12 of which cost $95 each" (but no guarantees on the effect).
Otherwise, I'll stay full of popcorn and outta funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday July 22 2019, @03:50AM (1 child)
Unsourced, anonymous advice from elsewhere on the internet suggests placing your head in boiling oil solves most problems.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @04:20AM
Yes. It's likely you'll remain with a single problem to address for all your (may be short) life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 22 2019, @01:44PM (3 children)
Free Speech is about being able to criticize the Orange Clown (or any other party's president), without government reprisals.
Free Speech is not about setting up a business to sell people bad advice or poisons that could harm or kill them. (unless it is tobacco)
Santa maintains a database and does double verification of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:02PM (2 children)
of course you support authoritarianism as long as it's the good/partisan kind.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 22 2019, @09:31PM
I do support reasonable regulations where they are necessary. Too bad if you define that as authoritarianism because you think anarchy would be better.
Santa maintains a database and does double verification of it.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday July 23 2019, @03:30AM
Preventing snake-oil salespeople from conning people for profit is hardly authoritarianism. As mentioned elsewhere, this "Health Coach" is free to make her outlandish claims at no charge, but once she starts charging for the privilege, consumer protection laws need to step in.
Just curious - are you OK with unlicensed lawyers, construction engineers, surgeons (the advice bit, not the cutting bit!) or financial advisors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @06:31PM (5 children)
On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, what if the medical advice was valid? How do you allow that speech but block this speech?
As an example, currently cannabis/marijuana is officially a Schedule 1 [dea.gov], so by definition has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. By this same argument, everybody who is saying that canabis has a valid medical use (let alone states which have legalized it) can and should be prosecuted. There are countless other cases as well (there have historically been literal conspiracies by pharmaceutical companies to suppress certain competing treatments or information).
So if we can prosecute everything outside the mainstream, where does that leave people who say, "the world revolves around the sun?"
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday July 22 2019, @08:25PM (3 children)
Simple. They don't care about the content of the speech except that it falls into the domain of a licensed professional. What they care about is that the individual rendering the advice was not licensed to do so. There may well be licensed dieticians who give exactly the same advice as the person prosecuted here and charge exactly the same rate.
As to those who believe the world revolves around the sun... Is there reason to believe someone is charging others in order to hear that? However I will give you the sound of one hand clapping: Go and obtain the license to be able to operate as a professional who says that. Problem solved.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @08:53PM
Except, as in the example for marijuana, the government intentionally does not give ANY license to anybody who is wrongthink. That's one way they had eliminated marijuana in the first place. They made it illegal to use marijuana for research unless you have a license (sounds reasonable, which congressman would vote against that?), and then refuse to grant anybody any license under any circumstances.
As an example, imagine the administration got it in their head that abstance-only is the only safe form of birth control, and/or that if a person sexually identifies as a horseradish that that is perfectly normal and needs no counseling. Now they have it as part of getting a medical license that they must subscribe to that ideology, at risk of malpractice and license revocation.
How do people who know "the truth" spread the word? Unpaid volunteer-only activities?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday July 22 2019, @10:06PM (1 child)
Professions are different. The work of Talcott Parsons [wikipedia.org] in the sociology of professions set out a lot of the reasons why. The basic thing is that professions are granted a monopoly on a particular practice, based on expertise and providing a social good. The secondary thing is that professions are granted autonomy, in that it is the profession itself that sets its own standards of practice, including ethics. And so professions must be organized, explicitly, to establish best practices, enforce ethical standards, and replicate itself as a profession.
Point being, a professional opinion is not the opinion of an individual, it is the opinion of an individual professional speaking for the profession. Thus not a matter of free speech. A couple of examples:
Hanging a shingle: One does not just profess to be a professional! It's not just a job, it is a calling, and as such relies on the professional community to recognize your self-identification. This is why we have professional schools, largely associated with universities, and other training requirements, like clerkships, adjutants, and interns. Our case here is of someone claiming professional expertise they did not have evidence of, which is the essence of quackery. Part of the monopoly of professions is that the profession can seek the aid of the state in granting licenses to practicioners, and punishing fakes. Case in point: Rand Paul's "Opthamology" certification [thedailybeast.com].
Stolen Valor: One may be a professional, but attempt to use the authority and prestige of one's profession for private or non-professional purposes. Advertising is one instance, where a medical professional may endorse a drug, or some therapy for personal compensation, rather than out of professional responsibility. Politics, being closely related, is another area. Often we see not too professional conservatives failing to separate professional and private, and so crossing the line. For an officer of the military to appear at a political function, in uniform, and speak in favor of some candidate/policy, is an attempt to suggest that their profession as a whole shares that position. The profession punishes such fools. [court-martial.com]
Religious Freedom: Current deceptive campaigns are being waged to guarantee "religious freedom" to professionals. This is again confusing the personal and the professional. If you are opposed to birth control, but it is the stated professional best practice to prescribe and administer instruments of the same, you cannot be a health care professional. Sorry. If you are opposed to, oh, let's say, blood transfusion [newyorker.com] because of a wacky literal reading of some holey book, you cannot be a health professional. Now we might think that you still could, and just recluse yourself from activities in the profession that mandate actions you have religious objections to. But if you arbitrarily choose what standards and practices and ethical values of your profession you will follow, you are no professional.
In sum, always make it clear when you are actually a qualified professional, and when you are not. Always make it clear when you are speaking as a professional and when not. (Nota Bene: Professions have free speech as autonomous professions, so they can an do speak out on matters relevant to their profession, as a profession, but professions are not persons, so no free speech in that sense. With great expertise (power) comes great responsibility.) Finally, do not steal professional authority to promote your own or partisan agendas. M'kay?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday July 23 2019, @05:49PM
Don't disagree. However, professionals are also usually only liable in tort for their representations when they have been compensated for them. (Which occurred in this case - they paid her and she delivered advice). They can still be responsible before licensing boards AFAIK, although her taking money sealed the deal that she was acting in a manner reserved for the professionally licensed. Mrs. Lawn used to work with supplements at a store which sold more than that, and had quite a bit of training on how to respond to questions from the public where they referenced people where to get advice rather than giving the advice themselves.
The other aspect is that in this case the person was not holding herself out to be a "nutritionist," but rather a, "health coach," according to TFA. The issue here as you noted, however, is that she was acting as a nutritionist without the credentials to do so whether she claimed the title or not and charging for that activity. One does not have to say one is a surgeon - if one cuts on a person and takes money for it one has practiced medicine without a license. One can say, "I am NOT a surgeon," but if one still takes money and then cuts then one is still acting as such without the credential.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @11:33PM
I don't know the answer, I'm not qualified in medicine (see what I did here?)
But the question does bring in focus the 'role of trust in human society', something that is so everyday-life rarely anyone consider as a general topic (as opposed to issues in specific circumstances).
Can you imagine what the liberty to scam others in the name of free-speech does to the trust?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:01AM (7 children)
This is the end of free speech, homeopathy, and Dianetics! No more Horticulture for Americans! SJWs will now force us to use their "science/evidence-based" medicine, and ignore our own ignorant preferences!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:05AM (2 children)
You know what it's not the end of? $1,140.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:23AM (1 child)
She does have a Masters in Education . . . Lesson would be cheap at twice the price!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @07:36AM
Wait, not a MA or an MS, but a MEd? A med degree? Whoa! Where's exaeta? The court got the whole thing wrong!
(Score: 2) by black6host on Monday July 22 2019, @02:13AM (2 children)
Well, Dianetics can go fuck itself, no worries. Dietetics on the other hand is perhaps not a bad thing. Especially given the licensing requirements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)
It's pretty bad, the research basis is garbage and when I've sought specific dietary advice, none of it was actionable. Unfortunately getting unlicensed advice is even worse.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 22 2019, @09:30PM
Exactly. They invariably tell us we should give up alcoholic beverages.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 22 2019, @12:56PM
That's an unfair comparison, homeopathy and dianetics have much bigger lobbying budgets than backyard "health experts" or the concept of free speech. They're still safe.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:16AM (2 children)
Even "legit" nutrition/diet "science" is largely garbage.
Let her practice her "art." It's Darwin's Law in practice.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @02:30AM
What? No debate?
Com'on, mate, what good is free-speech if it doesn't trigger endless debates and refucktations on both sides? At least you can teach the controversy, for the sake of art if not for profit.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Monday July 22 2019, @03:13PM
The problem is that these quacks cause a ripple effect that hurts people who arn't directly involved.
Look at the anti-vaxxers for example. If these idiots got themselves killed off for their stupidity, I wouldn't bat an eye. But no. It's their children who don't have a choice in the matter who suffer. It's the next door neighbour's infant who is too young to be vaccinated who suffers.
And then there are those who prey on the truely desperate. If you are on the verge of death due to some illness that is causing you incredible amounts of pain, you are by definition not thinking your best. And you will probably listen to someone... anyone... who will give you a shred of hope that you can beat this thing.
I've seen this happen personally, and it makes my blood absolutely boil when I think about it. These people are no different than any other con artist trying to swindle as much money from their marks as they can get, and IMO you can't throw the book hard enough at them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @02:46AM
misogynist incels. I love the way my lady doctor gives me physicals. We need more female doctors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday July 22 2019, @03:58AM (3 children)
Her mistake was charging straight up $$$ for the advice. It would be ok if it was a random website [livestrong.com] where they just collect ad money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)
Implying that livestrong.com has bad medical advice. I know Lance Armstrong has been exposed, but I thought the website itself still had good information. Admittedly not as good as talking to your own doctor, but better than homepathic.example.com.
Can anybody who knows more about this comment on the quality of their website?
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday July 23 2019, @01:21AM
Go to the link and read the first four nutrition-advice author bios. Only one is a dietitian.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday July 23 2019, @01:00PM
Profit margins are too low. She should of just offered free advice to take drugs that she got a sales fee for. Because salesmen definitely do not have follow the same rules as they are applying to her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @07:10AM (2 children)
It is speech, speech is free, it is free speech.
Free speech is not 'free from consequences' speech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @07:28AM (1 child)
Actually it wasn't free speech. She did charge for it after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @06:35PM
free as in freedom not as in beer, jeez
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 22 2019, @01:45PM
Would it be Free Speech to tell people to use genuine IBM equipment instead?
Santa maintains a database and does double verification of it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Monday July 22 2019, @01:53PM
People love state controlled authoritarian religions. In most civilized countries that is a traditional church; it historically and pragmatically seems to work better than any alternative.
The American Experiment is making our state religion stuff like dogmatic nutrition, worship of academia and consumerism, shared values like social subversion, orgasm as the highest human right, self destruction, and unlimited greed. It doesn't seem to work, pragmatically, and the more devoutly that new american religion is followed, the crappier the standard of living of that geographic area.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:23PM (1 child)
This situation and the state socialist authoritarian partisans in the comments are disgusting. Fraud prosecution is a legitimate responsibility of government in the US, but that is not the same thing as having to beg permission from the government (a license) to be able to earn a living as a consultant or anything else. Occupational licenses should be completely optional and the consumer can choose whether they think a license is important enough for a given voluntary transaction. As long as the consultant/other provider is clear and honest about the claims/promises they make, it's none of the government's business. Licenses are just a way for un-elected bureaucrats to gain power they would otherwise not be able to legally attain and for large corps to use the government to enforce vendor lock in. This is how you get all your health info from Big Pharma. Where did all the Real Americans go? Only groveling, treacherous rats left.
I hope this person has the ability to appeal to the supreme court or whoever is next up the chain. Hopefully they will get some non-whore judges this time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @08:18PM
No thank you. I will take advice from licensed physicans and medical professionals and appreciate the state's efforts to ensure that those who dispense medical advice, practice engineering, dispense legal advice, certified to teach in public schools, and operate motor vehicles on public roadways have been tested and certified that they are aware of their responsibilities and are nominally skilled to do so. I appreciate that a state will pursue and prosecute those who try to do these things without having obtained the proper license to do so.
Suck it.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 22 2019, @09:33PM
Florida, at the state, county and municipal levels, invariably tries to force you to buy a permit to do something. It has nothing to do with consumer protection, other than that is how they try to sell it. It is really about revenue streams for government.