Keep in mind that most law/medicine/engineering work has some local component anchoring it to local laws. (i.e. currently, someone typically needs to be 'boots on the ground' in the jurisdiction to provide the service) Software doesn't have that.
(edit: obviously, this is a U.S.-specific view of the situation. Other countries may not have the same issues)
1) Maintains a membership list 2) Maintains a list of software which is signed off on by members 3) Browser/OS/etc utilities which refuse and/or warn when trying to run software not in the registry 4) Member expulsion if registered software is found to be nefarious
This is basically the system Apple/Microsoft/Debian/etc/etc already use for official software distribution. We just need the organization to move out of their walled gardens.
The big leak here is users which have to use resources they don't control. I can imagine an IaaS company which won't run software unless its in the registry, and then companies can boast that your data is 'safe' (or at least not nefarious) because they run in this kind of environment.
“I can’t recommend this additional procedure for you despite it making me $8500 in a day.”
Regulation doesn’t seem to influence for profit medicine much.
The whole conversation is logged or perhaps converted speech2text as they discuss, and both patient and doctor sign each statement they make. Then both doctor and patient have a copy of their interaction.
Any poor advice is now provable to a third party (say court).
I think things would change pretty quick if engineers responded to such requests with "I can't do that, because my professional association would remove me from their membership, which would revoke my license to write software in this country at all".
That's how (AIUI) law, medicine, (real) engineering, etc., work today.