Why is it legal for professors to present out-of-date information as practical and fact, when doctors are expected to give patients the latest cures? Why is it illegal for doctors to not give the latest cure, keep in touch with the latest cures, find everything for the patient, but professors do not lose a practicing license as a result of teaching the out-of-date information and can tell their students (patients) to go figure out what prescription (information) they need themselves? Doing that as a doctor would be to tell their patients to die and succumb to nature. Imagine if a doctor during a visit in clinic did not give a diagnosis but instead gives lectures about history of some disease and medicine starting from Roman history on how to cure your illness via medieval methods and told you that you have to build a medicine from scratch and cure yourself or use the medieval methods that they present as facts and current medicine, and you leave the doctor's office not having a prescription and have a bill of a couple thousand dollars. A doctor has to show you the best cancer medicines available if you were to have cancer, but a professor may produce figures that are out-of-date and never update their lecture slides. Professors often teach from historical perspectives minus the last 70 years' of new developments, and ask you to figure out everything new/practical yourself, and you pay them a hundred dollars or more per lecture. I cannot name the law requiring professors to disclose if their lecture slides have out-of-date information but I am sure I can sue my doctor for prescribing a drug or handing me a drug that is out-of-date/was reverted to banned without telling me. Imagine if your doctor treated you with the same contempt as a professor.
Because the law of negligence has developed to include a duty of care between physicians and patients and the standard of care encompasses the things you describe. The common law conceives of the doctor and patient in such a close relationship of neighbor-ness that it makes sense to impose such a duty. The harm that flows from breach of that duty is often reasonably foreseeable. Another distinction is that you come to a physician with an illness and expect care and they purport to deliver it. Their care and advice is often not a product/service that you might have the option of not buying. There is no competing legal duty that pulls the physician in any other direction than to meet the standard of care. There is no corresponding duty of care between an instructor and student to instruct any particular syllabus content. It would be a novel addition to the common law if this were to be recongized. There is no standard of care dictating the content of the syllabus. Any obligation to deliver a particular syllabus would be placed on the professor by the university (perhaps further dicated by professional accrediting bodies). I do not foresee the common law developing to include such a duty of care between professor and student. The value of academic freedom weighs against the law imposing a strict duty on syllabus content and the kind of harm that might flow from presenting out-of-date information is vague and not often reasonably foreseeable. Such a duty could give rise to a spectre of of indeterminate liability. And it isn't clear that the interest in presenting the latest and current theories always outweighs the interest in presenting a historical perspective. These are all reasons why I highly doubt the common law would ever evolve to recognize the duty you're proposing.
The answer isn't really legal (though some jurisdictions regulate the use of such titles through statute), but academic. It depends on specific countries. Italy, for instance, allows all graduates, including undergraduates, to use the title doctor. However, in general the title doctor is reserved for those in medical professions, upon graduation, or holders of post-graduate doctoral degrees - the PhD, DLitt., LLD, and so on. The purpose is, for medical graduates, to allow them to identify themselves as medical practitioners. However, for doctoral graduates, the purpose is to recognise your contributions to the academic field. The JD is a qualifying degree - you've hardly contributed to the field. The JD is absolutely not similar to a doctoral program. It is far more similar to the LLB, however its origins are rooted in the equalisation of professional degrees in the USA - the LLB was conferred upon those who had already completed their first degree, and so the change to a JD was merely so that they could confer a "second" degree.
germany How illegal is it to give your prescription medicine to another person (in any amount)? Under the conditions: you are a private person you are giving (not selling) it is not, in itsself, illegal to give your prescription medicine to another person. OLG Stuttgart, Beschluss vom 18.01.2012 - 4 Ss 664/11 - openJur Nur die berufs- oder gewerbsmäßige Abgabe von Arzneimitteln, die apothekenpflichtig oder von einem Arzt verschrieben worden sind, an Endverbraucher außerhalb von Apotheken unterliegt der Strafbarkeit nach §§ 95 Abs. Abs. 1 Nr. 4, 43 Abs. 3 Satz 1 AMG. Die Abgabe verschreibungspflichtiger Arzneimittel an Verbraucher ist nach § 96 Nr. 13 AMG nur strafbar, wenn der Handelnde Apotheker oder eine sonst zur Abgabe von Arzneimitteln befugte Person ist. Das Tatbestandsmerkmal der Berufs- oder Gewerbsmäßigkeit bezieht sich auf sämtliche Tathandlungen des § 97 Abs. 2 Nr. 10 AMG. Die unerlaubte Abgabe auf Grund ärztlicher Verschreibung erworbener Betäubungsmittel an einen Dritten ist nicht von § 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 a BtMG gedeckt. 3a: auf Grund ärztlicher, zahnärztlicher oder tierärztlicher Verschreibung, Only the professional or commercial sale of pharmaceuticals that are sold in pharmacies or have been prescribed by a doctor to end users outside of pharmacies is subject to criminal liability under Sections 95 (1) No. 4, 43 (3) sentence 1 AMG. According to § 96 No. 13 AMG, the supply of prescription drugs to consumers is only punishable if the person acting is a pharmacist or another person authorized to supply drugs. The constituent element of professional or commercial activity refers to all acts of § 97 para. 2 no. 10 AMG. The unauthorized supply of narcotics acquired on the basis of a doctor's prescription to a third party is not covered by § 4 Para. 1 No. 3 a BtMG. 3a: on the basis of a medical, dental or veterinary prescription, Sources: OLG Stuttgart, Beschluss vom 18.01.2012 - 4 Ss 664/11 - openJur Medicinal Products Act (Arzneimittelgesetz – AMG) §43 - Pharmacy-only requirement, placing on the market by veterinarians §95 - Penal Provisions §96 - Penal Provisions §97 - Provisions on administrative fines
The "logbook" is required by federal law, part of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. See 21 USC 830 (e) (1) (A): Each regulated seller shall ensure that, subject to subparagraph (F), sales by such seller of a scheduled listed chemical product at retail are made in accordance with the following [...] (ii) The seller maintains, in accordance with criteria issued by the Attorney General, a written or electronic list of such sales that identifies the products by name, the quantity sold, the names and addresses of purchasers, and the dates and times of the sales (which list is referred to in this subsection as the “logbook”), except that such requirement does not apply to any purchase by an individual of a single sales package if that package contains not more than 60 milligrams of pseudoephedrine. "Scheduled listed chemical" is defined in 21 USC 802 (45) and includes pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient of Sudafed). As you can see, no distinction is drawn between prescription and OTC purchases. HIPAA became law in 1996. I'm not sure whether HIPAA would normally forbid the keeping of such a logbook (it mostly restricts how a provider can disclose information, not so much how it can store information), but even if it did, CMEA was passed later, so it would take precedence. Thus there is no way to "enable HIPAA" to avoid CMEA's requirements. (The passage quoted above does indicate a possible way to avoid the logbook: buy less than 60 mg at a time. That seems to correspond to two standard tablets. However, it's conceivable that a pharmacy might decide it wants to put such purchases in its logbook anyway; it's not clear to me that HIPAA or any other law would forbid them from making that a condition of purchase.) There may also be specific laws in your state placing further restrictions on pseudoephedrine purchases.
Presumably you consented to have an x-ray. It is a reasonable assumption that it was not your intention to simply be given the films without interpretation by a radiologist. If that was your intention then the obligation would be on you to make that clear since it is so far from ordinary practice that no reasonable person could know that. To use your analogy it would be like you asking to have your window washed but not wanting to have the soapy water rinsed off afterwards (assuming these were separately billable services). Further, rights and obligations under contracts are transferable by default. So it is perfectly legitimate for the lab to outsource the radiography without having to ask you.
It is not legal to give false responses on such a declaration. The point of anti-discrimination laws is that they say when it is legal vs. not legal to discriminate against an employee, and Alex is expected to have faith in the legal system to protect his legal rights. Dissatisfaction with the outcome of the law may be understandable, but still does not legally justify falsifying information given to an employer. In certain cases (look for the fine print and mentions of "penalty of perjury") you can be fined and imprisoned for lying. More commonly, your employment can be terminated when you are discovered. You may also be held liable for consequences of such lies. Your employer's health insurance contract might require truthful and accurate reporting of medical facts and a lie about your condition could result in termination of coverage.
It is legal. What would be illegal is for a public school to promote or inhibit a religion. You can teach all sorts of facts that touch on religion (millennia of Western history) and you can e.g. survey the major religions of the worlds as a cultural phenomenon. You can use circumlocutions or proper names. It's not illegal to confess to having personal beliefs. This is about public schools, which is an arm of the government. A person who is in a school, for example a student, is not prohibited from promoting or demoting a religion, therefore a student who clearly and openly advocates the Pastafarian faith is not to be sanctioned, except insofar as the conduct is objectively disruptive. This is because the student is clearly not acting as an agent of a government institution. Things are a little murky when it comes to teachers and guest speakers. Teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom. Here is a summary of pertinent court rulings. The main principle that comes from such cases is that school districts can direct teachers to refrain from certain actions when there is a reasonable belief that the actions would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Individual teachers have been ordered to not engage in silent reading of prayers in school (Roberts v. Madigan). Case law on guest lecturers is probably close to zero, since guest lecturers don't have the same kind of property right to be at the school expressing themselves as teachers do.
There aren't bright line rules in the area of fair use (which is the core issue - you are clearly copying a work that has copyright protected portions, at least - the question is whether fair use provides a defense and whether some portions are not copyright protected). This inquiry is fact specific and driven by general standards. Context such as whether the use would be free or commercial matter as well. For your own notes, anything goes pretty much. This generally wouldn't constitute "publication" of the work and would be for personal educational used by someone who paid for the book anyway. For shared notes - it depends. Also not all kinds of copying is created equal. Some parts of textbooks are themselves in the public domain or not protectable by copyright. For example, even a lengthy quote from a scientific journal article would probably be allowed with attribution. It would also be easier to evaluate based upon the type of textbook. A history textbook can have protection similar to trade non-fiction and can have very original exposition. An algebra textbook, less so. Your question also points to an end run. If the professor is the author of the textbook (many of mine were in something of a racket), you could get permission from the author.