Nanny State Strikes Again: Can't hug your Optician in Washington State

No dice! Subsection (3) of the provision states that “a health care provider shall not engage, or attempt to engage” in any of these activities “with a former patient, client or key party within two years after the provider-patient/client relationship ends.” Two years is not a short time. If you do want to date your former dental hygienist or optician, you can’t even kiss her until two years after you leave her practice. Or, to be precise, you can kiss her, and she can kiss you back–if she is willing to risk professional discipline and possibly loss of her livelihood, a pretty serious burden.

What the heck is wrong with this country? I mean, who writes this crap and what bunch of freaking morons pass it? It’s like Canada leaked down into Washington.

Stop the Nanny State before it’s too late!

I want to see that get enforced.

When I was back in CO last month I read a similar thing – gifts to all state employees were banned… then they realized that it meant that some professors couldn’t accept the money if they won the Nobel Prize and that kids of state employees couldn’t get state scholarships.

Oops.

Plus, we can’t forget that dildos are illegal in Texas.

I’m not aware of any equivalent rule in Canada. That’s your own home-grown crazy, I say.

Yeah I guess so.

I read a story today about Canada’s “Lost Citizens” that boggled my mind though:

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/01/24/3438030-sun.html

I read a story today about Canada’s “Lost Citizens”

Are they in London pretending to be Australian or South African?

Do Canadian Students just bugger off the USA for a year? Can’t say I blame them if they do, but we like Canadians, you don’t play any of the sports we do.

“Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”

We laughed then, but who’s laughing now?

I don’t know about opticians but that’s pretty standard stuff for a lot of professional helping relationships. I’m a professional counselor and it’s been that way as long as I’ve been in the field. Of course it’s designed to protect the patient from being taken advantage of by a therapist or doctor and it makes some sense in that context. But an optician? I’m not seeing it (pun intended).

I agree with the idea in principle but as Volokh says, it breaks way down at the margins.

He provides no background at all on why this was passed. Maybe it has something to do with the news last year a doctor here was raping a bunch of his patients?

Uh, fuck you.

Canada’s got nothing on American craziness. Just because we’re “liberal”, don’t associate that with all the stereotypes you have of dumbass American liberals.

There’s nothing like that here.

Wasn’t there a discussion a short while ago about Canadian teachers being under some pretty idiotic rules?

Well basically I was just being a troll on the Canada thing but what about this stuff:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/canada/

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004225.php

http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/st/status_of_religious_freedom_in_canada.htm

There are some serious problems with liberty in Canada right now just like in the US. It’s less likely to be about preventing people from dating opticians and more likely to be about being put in jail if you say you believe homosexuality is wrong.

I have to say that this one really is pretty dumb:

Bylaw states that no more than 3.

Edit: but a lot of those aren’t really anything to sneer at. Lots of US states don’t let you turn right at red lights, and lots of places make it your responsibility to clear snow from the sidewalk in front of your house.

The vast majority of which aren’t enforced. Most of those laws are silly hold-overs, unlike America, where they actually try to enforce silly laws, or those laws are taken out of context.

Ontario teachers not being able to fail students without parental permission, which I agree is pretty stupid.

Well that first link was more of a goof than anything else but the free speech/hate speech stuff is serious and very problematic.

This thread makes me very sad because I love Canada and hate to see it besmirched by oafs and yahoos and because my Optician is cute as hell.

In fact, I had a very strange dream a few months back that she was giving me an eye exam while wearing a see-through blouse, which is totally not good, because I find eye exams very stressful even under normal conditions. All this “which one looks clearer, this one or this one” crap makes me very tense. Add visible breasts, physical proximity and the leaning over, and it was not erotic at all. It was actually really more of a nightmare.

And I never have stress related dreams.

Getting hot.

bigotry ought to be addressed somehow, though, right?

Quite apart from the libelous attack on my home and native land (you fucks), I fail to see how this qualifies as part of the “Nanny State”. It seems to me more like the unexpected consequence of a poorly written law. Like that case from a couple months ago about the two kids who had sex, and both were charged with statutory rape because they both had sex with a person under the age of consent.