Dating dental hygienist
Dating dental hygienist - old age dating site
If you think two years is too long, try South Carolina.
Either there is a right to marry whomever you want to, or there is not.In any case I think the truly pernicious thing about these overbroad laws is not that they forbid many things, if they would really practically forbid everything they name then they wouldn't be that dangerous.If they truly enforced a law like this in a literal fashion it would get overturned in under a year.PS: In my practice I've done a little representation of professionals in front of licensing boards (medical-related).My impression is that it makes a *huge* difference whether one is in one of the privileged castes (for example, MDs and dentists) or one of the riff-raff (eg massage therapists).But say even that "key party" includes only those immediate family members who would be reasonably expected to play a significant role in the patient's health care decisions. So much for the right to marry; so much for sexual autonomy; so much for consenting adults deciding whom to love, without the fear of losing their livelihood. 1984) (freedom of intimate association extends to dating relationships); Louisiana Literary &Debating Ass'n v. 1994) (freedom of intimate association extends to truly private clubs). I can see it in the case of a psychiatrist where there's a huge opportunity for abuse of power, but a dental hygienist? Though I wouldn't mind if there was a law saying you can't hit on a waitress or bar tender - it would save me a lot of effort and embarrassment. Plainly these sorts of standards are, from a policy point of view, way over-broad. That is, many prosecutors/regulators (and a big chunk of the public) think that good criminal laws are those that result in the defendants being convicted 100% of the time, rather than escaping through "loopholes." Paraphrasing Ed Meese, if they weren't guilty, they wouldn't have been charged.
And say that the patient's sister is herself a doctor or a nurse. A truly stupid rule, that violates freedom of intimate association. This is yet another way that Washington State, which once had a sensibly conservative legal system, is now a paradigmatic Blue State. As for having a fixed ban rather than a case-by-case consideration of whether abuse of power has occurred in a particular case, that's just a classic rules versus standards situation, and it's legitimate to go with a rule over a standard for all the usual reasons (would have been legitimate to go the other way too), even if the scope of the rule in this case is excessive. And suddenly they find themselves included in this statutory definition . In this view, the right place to put the power in the adjudicatory system is in prosecutorial discretion.Say you live in Washington State, and you find yourself getting to know and becoming attracted to your dental hygienist — or for that matter your optician (that's the person who fits your eyeglasses, based on the prescription provided by your optometrist). Let's see how some new Washington regulations treat this. Under Washington Administrative Code 246-16-020, your dental hygienist and your optician are "health care providers." This means that, under Washington Administrative Code 246-16-100, they "shall not engage, or attempt to engage, in sexual misconduct with a current patient." Sexual misconduct "includes but is not limited to" sex, kissing, "[h]ugging ... nature," "[s]uggesting or discussing the possibility of a dating, sexual or romantic relationship after the professional relationship ends," "[t]erminating a professional relationship for the purpose of dating or pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship," or "[m]aking statements regarding the patient['s] ...You're interested in a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship, perhaps even marriage. You have a right to marry, and even a right to have sex (given Lawrence v. body, appearance, sexual history, or sexual orientation other than for legitimate health care purposesamong many other things." OK, you say, no problem; you should just switch to a different dental hygienist or optician, and then start dating. 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, not a short time.Perhaps banning optician-client relationships is going a bit far, but it's hardly a big burden on people's romantic, sexual, or marital choices. If you do want to date your former dental hygienist or optician, you can't even kiss them until two years after you leave their practice.Or, to be precise, you can kiss them, and they can kiss you back — if they are willing to risk professional discipline and possibly loss of their livelihood, a pretty serious burden. But wait; maybe before you leave them and wait the two years, you ought to get a sense of whether they're even interested, no?I only stopped coming to your office so that I could wait two years and then ask you out. " At that point, they can start a relationship with you — or say, "oh, sorry you had to stay away for two years, but I don't think it would work out between us." 4.