Regulatory Licensing Research Paper

Katalina Sawyer
College Writing
Thompsune
12/14/15
Paper #3
Our society normally regulates a certain range of activities; it is illegal to perform these activities unless one has received prior permission to do so. We require automobile operators to have licenses. We forbid people from practicing medicine, law, pharmacy, or psychiatry unless they have satisfied certain licensing requirements. We require drivers to be licensed because driving an auto is an activity which is potentially harmful to others, safe performance of the activity requires a certain talent, and we have a moderately reliable procedure for determining that talent. The potential harm is obvious: incompetent drivers can hurt and kill people. The best way we have of limiting
this harm without sacrificing the benefits of automobile travel is to require that all drivers demonstrate at least minimal skill. We likewise license doctors,. lawyers, and psychologists because they perform activities which can harm others. Obviously they must be skilled in that field if they are to perform these activities properly, and we have moderately reliable procedures for determining proficiency. Imagine a world in which everyone could legally drive a car, in which everyone could legally perform surgery, prescribe medications, dispense drugs. or offer legal advice. Such world would not last.
Consequently, any activity that is potentially harmful to others and requires certain demonstrated competence for its safe performance, it is theoretically desirable that we regulate it, regardless if it were to trouble a single person. For example, denying someone a driver's license in our society would inconvenience that person terribly by prohibiting them from working, shopping, or visiting in places reachable only by car.
Innocent people must be protected even if it means that others cannot pursue activities they deem highly desirable. We maintain licensing procedures even though our competency tests are sometimes inaccurate.
We recognize clearly that no test will pick out all and only capable drivers, physicians, lawyers, and so on. Mistakes are inevitable. This does not mean we should forget that innocent people may be harmed by faulty regulatory procedures. I only want to emphasize here that tests need not be perfect. Where moderately reliable tests are available, licensing procedures should be used to protect innocent people from incompetent people.
These general criteria for regulatory licensing can certainly be applied to parents.
Parenting can potentially be very harmful to children. From abuse to neglect, everyday there is a child out there with no love or respect from their parents. For whatever reason, the child receives no sense of self-worth. The results of this mistreatment are obvious; abused children bear the physical and psychological scars of maltreatment throughout their lives. Some may turn to crime and they are far more likely than others to abuse their own children. Even if these maltreated children never harm anyone, they will probably never be well-adjusted, happy adults.
A parent must be competent if he is to avoid harming his children; even greater competence is required if he is to do the job well. But not everyone has this minimal skill. Many people lack the knowledge needed to raise children adequately. Many others lack the necessary energy, temperament, or stability. Parenting is the perfect example for licensing regulation since the potential for harm is so great and the need for competence is so evident. Consequently, there is good reason to believe that all parents should be
licensed.

Why we shouldn’t:
Licensing is unacceptable, someone might say, since people have a right to have children, just as they have rights to free speech and free religious expression. They do not need a license to speak freely or to worship as they wish. Why? Because they have a right to engage in these activities. Similarly, since people have a right to have children, any attempt to license parents would be unjust.
This is an important objection since many people find it plausible, if not self-evident. However, it is not as convincing as it appears. The specific rights appealed to in this analogy are not without limitations. Both slander and human sacrifice are prohibited by law; both could result from the unrestricted exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Thus, even if people have these rights, they may sometimes be limited in order to protect innocent people.
Consequently, even if people had a right to have children, that right might also be limited in order to protect innocent people, in this case children. Secondly, the phrase "right to have children" is ambiguous; hence, it is important to isolate its most plausible meaning in this context. Two possible interpretations are not credible and can be dismissed summarily. It is implausible to claim either that infertile people have rights to be given children or that people have rights to intentionally create children biologically without incurring any subsequent responsibility to them.
In fact, this conditional way of formulating the right to have children provides a model for formulating all alleged rights to engage in hazardous activities.
Consider, for example, the right to drive a car. People do not have an unconditional right to drive, although they do have a right to drive if they are competent. Similarly, people do not have an unconditional right to practice medicine; they have a right only if they are demonstrably competent. Hence, denying a driver's or physician's license to someone who has not demonstrated the requisite competence does not deny that person's rights. Likewise, on this model, denying a parenting license to someone who is not competent does not violate that person's
rights.

Adoption/Fostering

Conclusion
Furthermore, we could make certain, as we do with most licensing programs, that individuals denied licenses are given the opportunity to re-apply easily and repeatedly for a license. Thus, many people correctly denied licenses would choose to take provide counseling or therapy to improve their chances of passing the next test. On the other hand, most of those mistakenly denied licenses would probably be able to demonstrate in a later test that they would be competent parents.