Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by FatPhil on Monday July 22 2019, @01:11AM   Printer-friendly
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. [...]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:02PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:02PM (#870005)

    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

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 22 2019, @09:31PM (#870088) Journal

    I do support reasonable regulations where they are necessary. Too bad if you define that as authoritarianism because you think anarchy would be better.

    --
    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday July 23 2019, @03:30AM

    by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday July 23 2019, @03:30AM (#870197)

    of course you support authoritarianism as long as it's the good/partisan kind.

    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?