I believe my quote stated that it would be "difficult" for ME to treat either of these 2 people. No comparison was made between them :rolleyes:

BUT since you brought it up, what's the difference between a shark in a sheet and a shark in a suit? Maybe the shark in the suit has more teeth, pearly white from bleaching treatments, but they BOTH bite! :yes:

Well, you said you imagine it would be just as difficult for you to be involved with the care of a malpractice lawyer as it would be for you to treat a klansman in the ER. That may not be a direct comparison of the two, but you are drawing a parallel between the two, and it certainly seems like you have just as much of a problem with a malpractice lawyer as you do with a klansman.

And I'm going to take your last remark, about sharks, as a joke... the "bite" of a malpractice lawyer is a bit less hateful and ignorant than the "bite" of a klansman....

And now, I'm going to opt out of this dicussion.... :rolleyes:

Bingo!

in a lot of ways, lawyers are governed by similar standards as doctors. lawyers have a professional code of ethics just like doctors do, and i'm sure refusing a case based strictly on someone's profession would also be considered unethical for a lawyer. they can refuse a case, but they are only supposed to do so with good cause - if they don't think the case will hold up, they think the person would be better represented by someone else, etc. they are not supposed to reject a case based on race, religion, sex, etc. if an attorney refuses a case, they are supposed to refer it out to another firm/attorney who they think might take it. although you hear about it less often, lawyers can also be sued for malpractice should they make an error that harms their client's case. when i worked in a law office, this was a big concern.

My dad is an attorney and the thought of a doctor refusing him treatment based on his profession is appalling to me. In his job as an indigent defender he represents the poorest of the poor and felons of every type. He has has many people ask him how he can represent people of this ilk and his repsponse is "It's my job." (Much the same the way that the physician's job is to treat the patient in front of them to the best of their ability). He is not able to "pick and choose" his clients - they are appointed to him and regardless of guilt or innocence he must do his job and represent them. I realize that the last few posts have narrowed the subject from attorneys in general to malpractice attorneys. However, I can't say that that necessarily makes me feel better about the whole topic.

As far as OB/Gyn's not treating due to the high cost of malpractice insurance- well, that's understandable. However, they are not billing themselves as obstetrician's, but only gynecologist's.

Everyone has their own opinions about what they would do in situations like these. However, it seems to me like if you are going into medicine with preconceived biases that could affect patient care, it may be better for you to stay on the research side of medicine. We have all lived in this world long enough to know that there are people who will not like us for our professions, our sex, our race or our religion but when you are working as a physician you have to find a way to get past all that. Would I treat a lawyer?Yes. A klansman? Yes. A gang member? Yes. Do I agree with all of their actions? No. But that doesn't excuse me from doing my job.

Thanks, but I don't need any career advice and I'll go on whatever side of medicine I choose. FYI, EVERY human being has "preconceived" biases of some sort or another.

Well pull out the Kumbaya so we can all sing along.

Maybe some of you should talk to a doctor that got screwed over by a lawyer then come back to the thread. Oh wait, that's the lawyers "job" so it's OK???? :rolleyes:

I was asked recently in traffic court (it's hard to keep my foot of the pedal in a car that can out run a vette ) by the judge why I did not become a lawyer. My response to him was that I wanted no part of a profession that could allow guilty people to go free. Having been an indirect victum of a violent crime (32 stab wounds to the back, neck and chest of my best friend from high school) and then watch the "indigent" killer roam the streets free helped me to decide very early on how much I wanted to have to answer to God for on judgement day.

You are quick to point out that you would have no trouble treating a civil rights attorney - well, one of every American's civil rights is to have representation at trial. I am truly sorry that you had something so terrible happen to you in the past, but it is necessary to have defense attorneys (and malpractice attorneys and civil rights attorneys) to see that EVERY American's constitutional rights are upheld.

It just seems to me that anytime you draw a line in the sand and say "I will not treat this entire group of people based on what some members of their group have done" - then that's discrimination. I do not agree with it in any shape or form. If by your Kumbayah comment you are insinuating that I am a bit idealistic then perhaps I am, but I think that's better than some alternatives.

I was not attacking you personally, but only trying to get people to see that it's important to try and see things from other perspectives. Having had close personal contact with lawyers my entire life, I think that the majority of them are good human beings. Some are not, and the same is true of doctors.

We can debate issues like this until the cows come home and never reach a concensus, because we have gotten into the realm of opinion. I did not join this website to debate, but to give and recieve advice concerning women in medicine. Therefore, I too am opting out of this particular thread.

i treat lawyers family members (including personal injury lawyers) and i treat lawyers, too!!! what am i thinking?? I also refuse to treat (by safe referral to someone else) people who threaten me, or that I am not working well with FOR ANY REASON. This isn't unethical, it is smart and makes me a better doctor.

If you choose private practice you will have many of these choices to make. I do "discriminate" against patients who can't pay me because i want to keep my office open and make a living and pay malpractice and do continuing ed and and and...i also make a big effort to find ways to see indigent individuals and was able to work out a contract with a "medicaid HMO" organization
to give care for less than it cost patients elsewhere but a reasonable fee for me..

treat bin laden? you bet, i want to see the trial.... but maybe not mouth to mouth resuscitation....

One woman's "discrimination" is another woman's "choice". You say tomato and I say tomaaato. You say potato and I say potaaato........