If someone who calls themselves a doctor or a lawyer goes on TV and gives medical or legal advice, that can cause harm and sets a bad precedent.

E.g., "Dr" Oz. Although I suspect most doctors are less likely to do that than folks who do not hold a medical degree.

Dr. Oz is very much a medical doctor.

Oz has been a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001. He directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. His research interests include heart valve replacement surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, and health care policy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz

Yes, that's my point — you don't need to not have an M.D. to spout completely false medical claims on television. I think he's a quack and his license should be revoked.

Sure. Still shouldn't be illegal. There's plenty of TV stations that make a living giving bad, wrong or plainly malicious advice(can think of quite a few) and it's not illegal.

But one way to quickly assess advice is by the person's credentials who is delivering it -- a doctor or lawyer telling you something about medicine/law warrants some degree of trust, but one may assume when they speak on other subjects that they've taken a more rigorous approach than your average person.

If your TV had Dr Gambiting giving medical advice is carries more credence.

Dr Dre advocates marijuana usage...

Even worse, people who never mention they're doctors can cause harm by saying vaccinations cause autism. It doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Due process can cause some predators to roam free, or cost taxpayers and victims expense to the benefit of evil people.

This argument that something should be illegal because it can cause harm is really shallow.

I guess I just don't see the harm in requiring someone to say "I am not a doctor, but..." if they want to give medical advice while giving themselves the title of Dr. without having earned it.

However, I do see the harm in someone pretending to be a doctor and giving medical advice that can hurt or kill someone.

People should be held liable for intentionally stating non-truths with respect to one's own, or another's character: ie falsely claiming to have a certain medical license.

Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice. If so, where does it end? Can you tell your child to take medication? Which medications? Can you help victims of accidents? Give CPR? Can you tell your Father not to get that particular medical treatment? Can you tell someone to not trust a particular doctor? What you're suggesting sounds like a litigious nightmare of egg shells through life.

On principle, should we not err towards advocating for granting power to the people instead of centralized, corporate and government authority structures? Or do you just not believe in that?

> Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice.

Please do not strawman my position. The discussion was about people purposely portraying themselves as doctors and then dispensing medical advice.

I have no problem with someone giving medical advice. I do have a problem with someone pretending to be a doctor while giving medical advice.

I get mistaken for somebody with authority all the time. What happens when a lay member of the public offers medical advice, and the recipient mistakes them for a doctor despite having made no claims to that title?

Given that we are talking about people who purposely portray themselves as doctors, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Ok sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

Would it be ok for a non-lawyer to hold himself out as a lawyer and accept money from “clients” who were fooled?

Of course not. That's fraud and already illegal.

What makes it fraud, what makes them calling themselves a lawyer not valid, if not the law?

Fraud is lying for financial gain. Lying for its own sake is not. You can say and pretend you are a lawyer as much as you like, but only as long as you don't do it to decieve someone for money.

I read become a lawyer in 8 hours the howto book, am i still committing fraud?

Yes.

So its almost like there is still a legal standard for what a lawyer is

I'm not sure what your point is. That's exactly what we are saying - there is a legal standard for actually being a lawyer.

But, we are also saying there shouldn't be any repercusions for someone just saying that they are a lawyer in any non-financial, non-professional context. If you go out and say to someone "hey, I'm a lawyer and I am very smart" then this shouldn't be illegal in any way or form, just like saying you are a pope or Bonaparte isn't - you're just making an idiot out of yourself. As long as you don't go and act as a lawyer(try to represent people for money for instance) then knock yourself out. This should be double obvious seeing as we're on the internet, where you can say you are a noble-winning physicist or a NASA engineer and without a way to verify it it matters nothing. It is scummy, immoral, unfair to lie about it? Of course it is. But it shouldn't be illegal.

Difference between a lawyer and a realtor is a lawyer has to get a law degree and pass the bar exam and then really doesn't owe anyone shit.

Realtor's are a cross between a MLM and a guild.

Real estate agents are legally acting as a lawyer in a very specific scope in some states. They are considered to be one, again in a very narrow scope.

And no Realtors/real estate agents in no way is anything close to an mlm. They work as an authorized extension of a licenced broker. They work on their behalf with oversight and receive compensation. But that is literally every job.

Not lawyer, attorney (someone with the legal right to act on another's behalf in a legally binding manner). Where a lawyer is an attorney-at-law, a real estate agent (whether a "realtor" or not) would be an ad hoc attorney-in-fact.

Being a real estate sales agent, in my US state, requires licensure. It's not a particularly difficult test, and arguably it has a component or protectionism to it, but there is also liability too.

Realtors (a trademark of the National Asociation of Realtors) are members of a private organization.