Lawyers can pick and choose, why can't doctors??? Are doctor's the ONLY prfession REQUIRED to treat people, someone please enlighten me because outside of a life saving emergency, I really don't know.

And about these "ethical requirements" for doctors, how long have they been in place because they surely weren't in place in the early 1960's when my Aunt bled to death following a car accident when the doctors at a southern all white hospital refused to treat her.

I am pretty sure but not 100% that you can refuse treatment but again not in a emergency situation. As long as you refer the patient to another physician aka give options physicians have the right to kind of pick and choose whom they treat. I do not think that physicians do not treat just for the heck of it but in some cases they (the doc) may have some legitimate reason to refuse treatment to specific folks. I am trying to not be judgemental about this because until I am there I really do "not" know what I would do neither would any of you. It is nice to sit here and type about our ideals but until we are placed in some wacko situation we really have no clue how we will react hence I am trying to keep an open mind. If you guys go to SDN there is some discussion going on about this same topic....in the allopathic forum. Again, think abortion here many physicians do *not* perform these and this is "refusing" treatment and the patients are referred to another physician that does perform abortions.

I think it was found to be illegal to post the names of pt;s who sued and so the webiste got removed- either way would not be ethical to pick aptients based on those criteria.......

I've personally observed some very good and kind physicians getting jerked around by the current practice of medicine, so perhaps for me being open minded and nonjudgemental is a hard thing to do. I work for a doctor now and all I can say is that I'm NOT looking forward to having to deal with the things I've observed first hand.

Now of course, we're all jsut speculating about what we would or would not do, but I like to shoot from hip. I imagine it would be just as "difficult" for me to be involved with a malpracitce lawyers care as it would be for me to treat a klansman in the ER. Being a doctor doesn't excuse me from being human first. In the later case, you swallow your anger and do your job in the other, I'd recuse myself from the case for FEAR of being sued at a future date. Now a civil rights attorney, I'd happily take the case. Am I the only one that sees the difference here or am I the only one bold enough to voice an opinion?

Yeah I do see the difference but I think that it is really hard to know how you will react. I know "now" that I would treat any patient even Bin Laden if faced with that situation but who know what I would "really" do if that happened...I would like to stay as I am now with my ideals and my high ethical standards but again if you get jerked around numerous times your ethical standards may have to be adjusted. In some states many ob/gyns are refusing to treat pregnant patients for the fear of lawsuits and are only doing the gyn services...many are leaving these states en masse...so what is the difference from not treating patients that are pregnant for fear of being sued from not treating patients that are associated with malpractice lawyers? food for thought.

Excellent point, excellent question. I personally think it's the same thing but I'm sure others may think differently.

I was under the impression that ob/gyns did this not out of fear of lawsuits, but because malpractice for obs in some states is exorbitant. They simply can't afford to treat pregnant patients if their malpractice is 200K a year. My dh is in anesthsia and his is only 11K per year. Huge difference.

Hmmm, I am not sure about this for many are still practicing in those states deemed in crisis but are not treating ob patients and I am assuming that this stems from fear of being sued and also the large malpractice premiums...maybe someone in that field knows the facts.

WHen you are liscenced, you are lisenced to do certain treatments. Even if you know the treatments, you can't do them if you are not lisenced to do them.
This is the same as insurance. If you did not disclose to the insurance company that you are going to do minor surgery for instance, you simply can't do it no matter how well you know the procedure.
Teh OB/GYNs who are not takign pregnant patients are doing so because they are no longer covered by their insurance to do that sort of care. The cost is too high for the insurance. So they can't take those patients. Not becuase they can but don't want to be sued. They don't want to pay the high insurance rates that are required to keep doing the OB side of things.
E

First, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between not treating a lawyer (and I am pleased that at least now we are only talking about malpractice lawyers) and not treating a pregnant patient. In the first case, you are discriminating on the basis of someone's profession, and making the assumption that their profession makes them more likely to sue you. In the other case, you are recognizing that the sort of treatment the patient requires is more open to claims down the line that mistakes you made led to various problems the child has. There IS a difference. Whether that difference should result in a difference in your decision to treat someone, I don't know.

ALSO... um, am I the only one to think that the comparison of a malpractice lawyer to a KLANSMAN is completely inappropriate and unreasonable?

By the way, the vast majority of malpractice suits are NOT frivolous. There are many incompetent doctors out there. Patients need recourse and malpractice lawyers are necessary. Some malpractice lawyers are unethical, but many aren't.

Also, people make the assumption that the sky-high malpractice insurance premiums are the result of frivolous lawsuits and outrageous settlements. From what I have heard, even in states where caps have been placed on awards, premiums have not gone down. The insurance companies don't necessarily pass savings onto the doctors.