• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are professional bodies legally able to limit what their members do professionally, o

Thermal said:
Yeah, I get that, but I think it follows naturally.

Q: Can the association dictate the ethics of it's members?
A: Yes, if the member agrees to them and is demonstrably (hence the precedent) willfully not in compliance. Should the member sue the association, I think it's a guaranteed loss on those grounds.

Again, if a lawyer is caught embezzling from her clients, pretty sure they would get disbarred, and we wouldn't be questioning if the Bar was in the right.
Click to expand...


Uhhhh, no, not really! In both those cases, the suicide doc, as well as the embezzling lawyer, it's a question of doing something illegal. There's no illegality involved here, should some doc choose to help with executions. (At least, I don't actually know that. But I think not, because like I said in that case what the executioner is doing would also be illegal, and he'd be convicted as well.)

Yes, that does make sense, what you say about the doc having already agreed to the terms, including the ethical bits, when he signed on the dotted line. I agree, if he'd wanted to contest this, then he should have sued right at the get-go, rather than first agreeing and then afterwards going back on what he'd promised to abide by. That specific makes sense, as far as I'm concerned.

But that's still a matter only of detail, right? Whether the doc sues AMA before signing on, or after having done the thing and got kicked out as a result, but either way, if AMA were sued, what might the courts say? That's what I was wondering, whether it's legally tenable, this particular ethics thing of AMA's.
 
arthwollipot said:
As far as I am concerned, any professional body can adopt a Code of Conduct, and expel members who do not meet those standards. If that Code says, in essence, "members shall not perform executions", they would be perfectly within their rights to expel or deny membership to people who do.
Click to expand...


Sure, that’s one way to look at it. I’m not saying I disagree necessarily, or that I think the opposite, but I was wondering if introducing arbitrary and far-from-ironclad matters of ethics and morality, actually would hold up in a court of law if challenged.

And it’s one thing if this were some informal club or something, or if just one among a whole clutch of unions that you might pick and choose from. If all you’re barred from by that club enforcing its ethics is some cool dinners and dances, and maybe some useful networking, then that’s one thing. But if you’re substantially impacted in your career in terms of, for instance, who’ll employ you --- as Ziggurat brought up upthread --- then it is at least plausible that either AMA, or else maybe those that use AMA membership to blanket-screen potential employees, might be liable for damages if challenged.


arthwollipot said:
A medical license can be granted on knowledge alone. It does not (or should not) require an ethical test.
Click to expand...


Sure, agreed, that it should not. Does it, though, in practice, at the level of the state boards who issue these licences? I've no idea, but, like you, I'd imagine not.
 
Chanakya said:
Uhhhh, no, not really! In both those cases, the suicide doc, as well as the embezzling lawyer, it's a question of doing something illegal. There's no illegality involved here, should some doc choose to help with executions. (At least, I don't actually know that. But I think not, because like I said in that case what the executioner is doing would also be illegal, and he'd be convicted as well.)

Yes, that does make sense, what you say about the doc having already agreed to the terms, including the ethical bits, when he signed on the dotted line. I agree, if he'd wanted to contest this, then he should have sued right at the get-go, rather than first agreeing and then afterwards going back on what he'd promised to abide by. That specific makes sense, as far as I'm concerned.

But that's still a matter only of detail, right? Whether the doc sues AMA before signing on, or after having done the thing and got kicked out as a result, but either way, if AMA were sued, what might the courts say? That's what I was wondering, whether it's legally tenable, this particular ethics thing of AMA's.
Click to expand...

Ok, again, apologies for being a little scatterbrained interpreting your question. I keep getting it, then my base assumptions take over and I lose it.

Your basically asking if a governing association has the Right to dictate ethical standards of it's members? My base assumption is yes,because that's what the member agreed to. I guess the issue becomes that the member has no choice about being a member of the association if he wished to do this job, so the association is in a position of disproportionate power?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The OP question belongs in the humor bin for sure. Can a professional organization set their own rules for membership?

Well d'uh, of course they can. How absurd (sorry for being rude). How is this even a question?

I do have to maintain my professional certification as an FNP in order to renew my ARNP license. But that's because the state dept of licensing delegates certain tasks to the national certifying body. Saves the state money and it lowers my relicensing fees.
Click to expand...


No issues, Skeptic Ginger. I read your post not as rude, but merely strongly opinionated, and that opinion robustly expressed, is all. All good.

As far as that opinion, I’d like to examine that a bit, though. You’re saying all professional organizations should be free, as far as the law, to set and to enforce whatever extra-legal “ethical” rules they like, and that it’s “absurd”, comical, to want to examine that and question that? Okay, think about this, then: What if, going forward, AMA widens its “ethical guidelines” to insist that doctors should not perform abortions “frivolously”, that is, unless there’s a medical emergency? Would you still then agree that they’re free to do that, and that it’s absurd and comical to think about challenging those “ethical” guidelines in a court of law?

Actually it’s more than that. A closer equivalent would be if, in that dystopian scenario --- and I think you’ll agree that dystopia is far closer today, and far more likely, than anyone could have imagined a decade ago --- if some pregnant woman got a court mandate for a non-medical abortion, citing something like a rape maybe, and in that situation if AMA nevertheless prevented doctors from assisting even with that specific court-mandated non-medical abortion on pain of expulsion.

…Still think it’s all absurd and humorous, that one might want to examine the legal validity of the principle of the thing?
 
Chanakya said:
Sure, that’s one way to look at it. I’m not saying I disagree necessarily, or that I think the opposite, but I was wondering if introducing arbitrary and far-from-ironclad matters of ethics and morality, actually would hold up in a court of law if challenged.

And it’s one thing if this were some informal club or something, or if just one among a whole clutch of unions that you might pick and choose from. If all you’re barred from by that club enforcing its ethics is some cool dinners and dances, and maybe some useful networking, then that’s one thing. But if you’re substantially impacted in your career in terms of, for instance, who’ll employ you --- as Ziggurat brought up upthread --- then it is at least plausible that either AMA, or else maybe those that use AMA membership to blanket-screen potential employees, might be liable for damages if challenged.





Sure, agreed, that it should not. Does it, though, in practice, at the level of the state boards who issue these licences? I've no idea, but, like you, I'd imagine not.
Click to expand...
Its part of most engineering licensure. More legal than ethical though. Questions about what an engineer is legally allowed to do and who can call themselves professional engineers and such.

ETA: naturally this is specific to engineers in the US and to the few states I'm licensed in but I think its likely other professions have similar requirements.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Ok, again, apologies for being a little scatterbrained interpreting your question. I keep getting it, then my base assumptions take over and I lose it.

Your basically asking if a governing association has the Right to dictate ethical standards of it's members? My base assumption is yes,because that's what the member agreed to. I guess the issue becomes that the member has no choice about being a member of the association if he wished to do this job, so the association is in a position of disproportionate power?
Click to expand...


Bingo! ...If it's just an informal club, and all you'll be missing if you don't join is being able to dress up and take your girl out to dinner at their dos, or may some useful networking opportunities, then I think I'm with you, if you don't like it then don't join. ...But what if you can't not join, not if you're at all serious about your career prospects, what then? (That is, I still don't definitely say that it's legally wrong, I actually have no idea. But I strongly feel it isn't an open-and-shut case. Not unless this has already been tried, and the courts have already ruled in favor of AMA --- should that have happened, then sure, I'd agree it's a black and white thing then, even despite the disproportionate power thing.)


(Of course, it would have been even worse if it were a question of the doctors' licence. Which is what I'd thought, basis what I'd gathered from that other thread, when I posted the OP. That's not the case, like Ziggurat points out, so it's not quite that extreme, that dire. ...But still, even so, the disproportionate power thing, like you say, it's still entirely completely disproportionate, even leaving aside the licence thing.)
 
My professional bodies could choose to expel members for a whole range of what they consider to be ethical breaches. Because it’s not a licensed profession they couldn’t actually take any measures to stop me working, but they’d presumably get arsey if I signed stuff off claiming credentials that I no longer held.
 
Chanakya said:
Bingo! ...If it's just an informal club, and all you'll be missing if you don't join is being able to dress up and take your girl out to dinner at their dos, or may some useful networking opportunities, then I think I'm with you, if you don't like it then don't join. ...But what if you can't not join, not if you're at all serious about your career prospects, what then? (That is, I still don't definitely say that it's legally wrong, I actually have no idea. But I strongly feel it isn't an open-and-shut case. Not unless this has already been tried, and the courts have already ruled in favor of AMA --- should that have happened, then sure, I'd agree it's a black and white thing then, even despite the disproportionate power thing.)


(Of course, it would have been even worse if it were a question of the doctors' licence. Which is what I'd thought, basis what I'd gathered from that other thread, when I posted the OP. That's not the case, like Ziggurat points out, so it's not quite that extreme, that dire. ...But still, even so, the disproportionate power thing, like you say, it's still entirely completely disproportionate, even leaving aside the licence thing.)
Click to expand...

Ok. I'd argue that there are a very few professions where the highest ethical standards should actually be an enforceable requirement. Medicine, law, and arguably law enforcement being on the short list. Who gets to determine those standards might be an interesting question, but the basis is solid.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
For MDs in the US (not sure about lawyers and I don't want to look it up at the moment) their licenses to practice are governed by their respective state boards which licenses them. From there however, many choose to be "board certified" in their specialities. Board certified is through their professional organizations.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Appreciate the clarification!
 
Chanakya said:
No issues, Skeptic Ginger. I read your post not as rude, but merely strongly opinionated, and that opinion robustly expressed, is all. All good.

As far as that opinion, I’d like to examine that a bit, though. You’re saying all professional organizations should be free, as far as the law, to set and to enforce whatever extra-legal “ethical” rules they like, and that it’s “absurd”, comical, to want to examine that and question that? Okay, think about this, then: What if, going forward, AMA widens its “ethical guidelines” to insist that doctors should not perform abortions “frivolously”, that is, unless there’s a medical emergency? Would you still then agree that they’re free to do that, and that it’s absurd and comical to think about challenging those “ethical” guidelines in a court of law?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be illegal for the AMA to do that. What law says professional organizations are limited in what they require of their members?

Their members would object and the rule would not be established or if it were then a lot of doctors would drop their membership.

Actually it’s more than that. A closer equivalent would be if, in that dystopian scenario --- and I think you’ll agree that dystopia is far closer today, and far more likely, than anyone could have imagined a decade ago --- if some pregnant woman got a court mandate for a non-medical abortion, citing something like a rape maybe, and in that situation if AMA nevertheless prevented doctors from assisting even with that specific court-mandated non-medical abortion on pain of expulsion.
Click to expand...
And?

…Still think it’s all absurd and humorous, that one might want to examine the legal validity of the principle of the thing?
Click to expand...
It's absurd and you seem to be having a hard time separating legal practice from private organizations.
 
It should be noted that state boards of nursing or medicine have a number of requirements with the bottom line is having an accredited medical/nursing degree.

I have to have a certification in advanced practice to get an advanced practice license. That doesn't mean said certifying organization is subject to some law. In fact the board determines what is required by law to become licensed. There is no 'law' that requires the specific boards follow other than one that says the boards establish the practice laws.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's absurd and you seem to be having a hard time separating legal practice from private organizations.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's absurd. For anyone who doesn't work in a field with an oversight body of that sort, it's a very odd relationship. I don't think it's intuitive at all. Lack of understanding on a topic outside the scope of an average layperson isn't something I would be inclined to label "absurd".
 
Emily's Cat said:
I don't think it's absurd. For anyone who doesn't work in a field with an oversight body of that sort, it's a very odd relationship. I don't think it's intuitive at all. Lack of understanding on a topic outside the scope of an average layperson isn't something I would be inclined to label "absurd".
Click to expand...

I ask you the same question then, what law is it you believe covers the membership qualifications of a professional organization?
 
The wording of the title of this damn thread keeps making me think we are talking about sex work and I get distracted.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I ask you the same question then, what law is it you believe covers the membership qualifications of a professional organization?
Click to expand...

:confused: I don't. Your question isn't relevant to my post.

I wasn't arguing against the factual content of what you said, I was pointing out that it's not absurd for a layperson to not understand some of the distinctions. Hell, I work in a similarly governed field, and I had an incorrect understanding of the dynamics. I don't think it's reasonable to treat laypeople as if it's some failing on their part to not understand it, that's all.
 
I agree with Emily's Cat on this. I wouldn't have any idea how any of this works if I didn't need a license to do my job.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: I don't. Your question isn't relevant to my post.

I wasn't arguing against the factual content of what you said, I was pointing out that it's not absurd for a layperson to not understand some of the distinctions. Hell, I work in a similarly governed field, and I had an incorrect understanding of the dynamics. I don't think it's reasonable to treat laypeople as if it's some failing on their part to not understand it, that's all.
Click to expand...

ahhell said:
I agree with Emily's Cat on this. I wouldn't have any idea how any of this works if I didn't need a license to do my job.
Click to expand...

So forget the OP question and make up one of your own then?

Got it. :rolleyes:
 
Thermal said:
Ok. I'd argue that there are a very few professions where the highest ethical standards should actually be an enforceable requirement. Medicine, law, and arguably law enforcement being on the short list. Who gets to determine those standards might be an interesting question, but the basis is solid.
Click to expand...


That seems reasonable. And not just for those particular professions, I’d probably also include teaching to that list, and the military as well. And politicians even. And, hell, lawyers? The world would be a better place, for sure, if people manning these positions were all ethical.

But what’s “high”? As you say, who gets to determine that, and why? In case of the medical field, the doctors? But what if the necessary majority at AMA banded together and decided abortions are “unethical” unless there’s an actual medical emergency, what then? Why must everyone else have to kowtow to the “ethics” of a bunch of doctors, just because of a technicality that lets some doctors ride roughshod over the others?

(To be clear, if every doctor decided, for themselves, that non-medically-mandated abortions are unethical, and that they wouldn’t play any part in such, then that’s a very different matter. I don’t think you should be able put a gun to a doctor’s head and make him do what he doesn’t want to. But I’m talking here about those doctors that might be willing to do this, but who find themselves unable to because some other doctors have managed a large enough majority in the relevant forums and basis that are able to impose their ethics on to them.)

I think extra-legal enforceable standards are a pretty dicey proposition. Exactly the sort of proposition that the courts are best equipped to deal with, I should have thought, on a case by case basis. (And like I said, it might be the case that the courts have already dealt with the issue, either for AMA specifically or for professional associations in general. In which case, obviously, whatever the courts might have decreed goes. That last, like I’ve said already, I’ve no issue with.)


Thermal said:
The wording of the title of this damn thread keeps making me think we are talking about sex work and I get distracted.
Click to expand...


Haha, Rorschach much?!

*looks up at the mangled-by-algo thread title*

*thinks better of it, and looks away quickly*
 
Hmm, okay.

You, Skeptic Ginger, aren’t fazed by my abortion hypothetical, as I’d imagined you’d be. You seem to be implying that even if such monstrous “ethics” were insisted on by AMA, but you’d nevertheless continue to think that they’re perfectly within their rights to do that --- so much so that it would be “absurd” to even think of challenging it.

And Emily’s Cat and ahhell, you disagree with Skeptic Ginger’s apparent humor-trigger, and with what she finds absurd; but the actual substance of her opinion, that both of you seem to agree with.

Well then, given that, and given your own direct first-hand experience of this sort of thing, let me ask all three of you to clarify these specifics for me:

1. Let me just cross-check this one more time: You’re all three unanimous, then, that profession-wide associations, including AMA, are free to devise and to enforce any and every kind of extra-legal “ethical” rule, as long as that doesn’t explicitly break the law? Including, for instance, the abortion thing? Should, for instance, AMA insist that it would be “unethical” and therefore verboten for a doctor to abort a child other than for strictly medical reasons, they they’d be within their rights to kick out doctors for going against that stricture, even if our present laws remain unchanged? You’re sure of this, basis your own personal experience with this sort of thing? (Not doubting you at this point, just trying to make fully sure of where you stand on this.)

2. You’re all three agreed, then --- again your personal take, basis your own personal experience --- that it’s such an open-and-shut thing, that it makes no sense to even challenge any such “ethical” rule in a court of law?

3. Assuming you’ve all three answered a ‘Yes’ to #2 above, then let me, finally, ask you this: What makes you so sure that a legal challenge of this kind has no reasonable chance of actually working? Is it because you’re actually aware of some such legal challenge actually having been mounted, whether recently or maybe well in the past, and the courts simply threw out the case/s? Is it because you're aware of the laws that apply to this thing, even if sketchily, and basis that arrived at your answer? Or is it simply because you’ve never heard of any such legal challenge ever having been taken to court?

I’ll take your word for this, for now --- assuming you’re unanimous about this. Of course, as far as #3, if it is the first answer, then that’ll make it practically watertight, your conclusion, and I'll be happy to embrace it completely. If it's the middle option, then obviously that's less watertight, but I guess I can still accept that provisionally, particularly if you could take the trouble to spell out your working briefly. But if it's simply basis the last option, that is it's just because you've never ever heard of strictures of this kind ever having been challenged in court, just that and nothing else, well then in that case I'd say it remains an open question, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom