We all use technology to treat ourselves in lieu of a surgeon all the time, whether it's a Google search, a plaster, or cough medicine or whatever. Are you going to give up all the advances that differentiate your situation from that of someone in say, 17th century Europe, because an expert should do it because they're an expert?

No thanks. I'll take advances that make things easy enough to avoid experts wherever I can get it and leave the bloodlettings (which, with lawyers, will be from your bank account) to others.

That’s not what he said. The key word there was _operate_, not _use a band–aid_. I wouldn’t recommend trying to take out your own appendix; it’s a really bad idea.

On the other hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov

(If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the soundtrack.)

Yea, but he was already a professional practicing surgeon! The rest of us should not attempt this; we should hire a professional. It is similarly preferable to hire the services of a professional lawyer most of the time.

You've cherry-picked a procedure out of the thousands possible. The reason it's preferable to use a surgeon for things like appendicectomy is because there isn't a technology to do it for yourself or treat it before it needs surgery. There are, however, other treatments available for other maladies that mean you don't need a surgeon or won't need a surgeon, and thus surgeons can concentrate on other stuff that we don't have better, cheaper ways of taking care of.

If AI can take care of parking tickets and small claims, perhaps speed up the process by making lawyers quicker at their jobs et cetera et cetera, then it's all good. If it puts pressure on lawmakers to simplify the law, all the better.

>Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verification procedure, so forgery is trivial even if your country has a more secure domestic system)

What's the point of going to (or even calling) a doctor for an antibiotics prescription? It's not like they're going to perform blood tests before prescribing. Want some Cialis for the weekend? Why go to a doctor? You can just pull up the contraindications on Google. Why bother doctor shopping for Ozempic? Just print your own prescription.

Wait, what? I can just print a foreign prescription for Adderall or Dilaudid and the pharmacy will accept it? I don't think that would work...

It depends on the country, usually there are national rules requiring special prescriptions for "fun" drugs like that.

If you can pick up drugs like that with an ordinary private prescription in your country, a foreign prescription should work.

For further information:

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/health/prescription-me...

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/health/prescription-me...

Pretty sure, sometimes a doctor might know more than you on a prescription or their educated guess on which antibiotic is appropriate is better than yours, for example.

Hey, I definitely agree.

On the other hand, every time I've gone to the doctor with a cold, I've always been prescribed the same antibiotic after basically no examination.

If I had some new, unexpected symptoms, I'd probably want to at least call the doctor.

You do realize that antibiotics are completely ineffective against a cold? You're wrecking your digestive system and risking antibiotic resistance for nothing. If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics, either they're a terrible doctor, or they're a bad doctor and you're a worse patient.

Yes, sorry. That's just language barrier raising it's head. What I meant was strep throat, obviously there's not much of a point in taking antibiotics for a viral infection.

I don't need a doctor to inspect my tonsils, I have access to a phone with a flashlight.

And for what it's worth, I think I've taken antibiotics twice in the past 4 years. Always according to the instructions on the packaging.

At least in Switzerland, I always had to have blood tests done before the doctor would prescribe anti-biotics. The core issue you have is with the doctor prescribing things willy-nilly.

That might be a thing in some EU countries, but it's certainly not the norm across the EU. You can still buy antibiotics without a prescription in many EU countries, for example in Spain it's entirely dependent on the pharmacist.

> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong"

Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.

Where I live, insurance for civil litigation is actually pretty cheap. For criminal cases, my understanding is that in a lot of places you will be given a lawyer if you cannot pay for one as a defendant.

They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.

Most countries also give you a lawyer if you need it, no? Like, you get public defenders in the US?

Not for civil cases. And the reputation of public defenders for criminal cases is not particularly good.

In Denmark there is "fri process" that will ensure a lawyer is provided when really needed and you can't afford it – my guess is that other countries have similar systems.

The problem is that, most of the time, those lawyers are so loaded with cases that they cannot provide you full representation.

Ask any US Federal DA or US Federal Public Defender who you know to be honest. Any.

It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.

> It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.

It differs in my country, and it is very likely. The US follows an anglo approach to law. No country in the EU follows that – I do understand that it is the easiest to assume that other countries work like you expect, though not very productive.

> Ask any US Federal DA

There is no such thing as a “US Federal DA”.

I assume you mean a US Attorney. OTOH, US Attorneys and Federal Public Defenders (in the judicial districts that have them, its a district by district decision under the governing law) may not be the most knowledgeablr about this since most cases are tried in state court and the federal indigent defense delivery system is very different from most state systems, both in structural model and caseload.

"need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point"

Both, but for most people it is simply the price point, so this is the more important issue.

I think no one has a problem, that when setting up complicated contracts with multiple persons involved, a legal expert is necessary, but for very basic things, it should not be, but rather the laws should be more clear and simple.

> Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)?

Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that governs society needs to be accessible to members of society, long before they reach the point of litigation.

It might also be a function of legal tradition/system. In some places laws are quite easy to read for me, in others I find it much tougher (as a non-lawyer).