Someone on a different thread was bold enough to admit that they wouldn't treat a relative (of ANY relation) of ANY attorney. What does everyone else think??? Personally I do not see the relation.

Not only would there be no effect directly to insurance premiums, but this is unethical. Can you ethically decide not to treat the trauma that comes in because he was shot while robbing a liquor store? WOuld you treat a wife beater and not a lawyer's sister?

We are in, I hope, this profession to treat human beings. Other than the details of the History of a HnP that would guide diagnosis and treatment, there is no other information that should alter methods of treatment nor the standard of care given.

Ellie

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ellie:
How does treating a relative of an atty have ANYTHING to do with your insurance rates?
E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from PathDr2B:
I'm guessing rates wouldn't increase by as much if the insuarance companies didn't have huge payouts to make.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 362 | From: Bethesda, MD | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged

I still don't see the logic in your statement. Sure, the premium rates may go up due to huge pay-outs, but what does this have to do with treating a relative of an attorney?
E

My only comment is, How much WORSE would the settlement be against you for refusing to treat someone based on their family's employment than anything that could happen from you messing up? You're certain to get sued for refusing, if something bad happens, and probably won't get sued if you do your job.

Not to mention that most attorneys are *not* malpractice lawyers, and are *gasp* good ethical people. (not to imply that malpractice attorneys are not ethical...some must be :p )

And what do the family members have to do with it? I'm not a doctor(yet?) but doesn't this violate the hippocratic oath and go against the very reasons one would go into this profession?

Actually there was a web site set up by a physician with the names of patients that had previously sued physicians and docotors "were" refusing treatment to these folks...so I am assuming that this is within the scope of the physician....to refuse treatment.

That is completely and utterly insane. I am going to be marrying a lawyer, and am considering going to med school. 1.) my fiance is a good, ethical person, not an ambulance chaser... and 2.) even if for some reason he was really pressuring me to sue, thinking I had a case, I am my own person... I can make a decision by myself.

I think it boils down to selfpreservation, doing whatever you have to, to protect youself and your families interests.

Right, and I understand having a list of people who have previously sued doctors, and refusing to treat those people. (Though, many complaints ARE valid, and it is unfair to penalize patients who brought valid complaints.) But refusing to treat ANY relatives of lawyers is another matter. There's nothing to suggest those people would be more likely to bring legal action than anyone else would be. If it comes down to self-preservation, well... being a doctor puts you in a position to possibly be sued. The safest thing would be to not be a doctor at all.

I could be really extreme and say something like, "Poor people are all trying to make money, so I am going to assume they'll bring frivolous lawsuits, so I won't treat them." Obviously that would be ridiculous and unfair.

I understand your point but I think that some physicians are not treating malpractice lawyers...I have no idea if this includes their families although how would you find out? some physicians are conducting background checks...I do realize that some of these strategies seem quite unethical although they are legal. As physicians you *can* refuse treatment this is non-emergent treatment. I am sure this sounds awful to many pre-meds but when faced with huge debt, high malpractice costs, families to take into consideration (your own), and the amount of time pursuing this goal, I do see how some folks might recur to some extreme measures. I do understand that many patients that have sued are for legitimate reasons and I am sure that physicians can discern who these patients are and those are not labeled as "frivolous lawsuit" seekers.

Great discussion guys!
In regards to the post about refusing treatment, my understanding is this...
You can refuse a transfer...if you can't provide adequate treatment...and if you have a patient that for whatever reason you cannot treat, you MUST provide them with a referral to another doctor that would reasonably be able to provide treatment.
But, as a resident, I have been in programs that have an "accept all transfers" policy...(makes the life easier after 5 on Fridays for some of teh Docs in the smaller hospitals) and following my own ethical standards, I will continue to accept all the transfers that I feel I can provide treatment for. Unfortunately, though, the transfers don't come in as, "My child has a play tonight so I need to get out of the hospital, can you acccept this transfer??" Any reason can be stated to make it sound more of a medical necessity transfer....the hospitals in WV would transfer patients to the county hospital if the patient didn't have insurance...a blantant violation of ...?CORA? ( I think that's what it is called...)
I actually got a transfer once because I was told that a regular sized hospital didn't ahve traction available to them.
Anywho, I still think that the ethics of a physician are to treat patients. No matter their status, period.
Ellie