[A] rough distinction [between a valid professional regulation and an impermissible restriction on speech] always exists, I think, which is more shortly illustrated than explained. A state may forbid one without its license to practice law as a vocation, bút I think it could not stop an unlicensed person from making a speech about the rights of man or the rights of labor, or any other kind of right —Likewise, the state may prohibit the pursuit of medicine as an occupation without its license but I do not think it could make it a crime publicly or privately to speak urging persons to follow or reject any school of medical thought. 323 U.S. at 544-45, 65 S.Ct. 315 (Jackson, J., concurring); see also Bailey v. Huggins Diagnostic & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 952 P.2d 768, 773 (Colo.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); cf. Robert Post, Informed Consent to
holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that first amendment does not permit a court to hold a dentist liable for statements published in book or made during news program even when statements were contrary to opinion of medical establishment holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence