The problem with the law is the definition of “misinformation”.
If (you are a licensed MD) and a patient comes to you with treatable breast cancer, and you tell her to try garlic, and she dies of metastatic disease 3 years later, you are going to lose your license.
There ARE garlic proponents, but none of them are MDs, and while it’s frustrating to us that nothing happens to them, well, them’s the rules of the game.
Malpractice trials have always had the “respectable minority” defense - if you did something that a majority of MDs do not, as long as there is a “respectable minority” who practice as you do, you should be good to go.
What this law does is to eliminate the “respectable minority” concept, to enthrone consensus instead.
Consensus in science, or medicine, isn’t all that common. But the forces pushing for consensus (insurance companies, Medicare, hospital systems) all want a standard which can be applied in (almost) all cases - because it’s cheaper.
Once you see consensus documents coming from someone or something which is paying the bills - you can be sure it’s all about the Benjamins.
Good response.
Gavin’s law will delete available choices of treatment.