He he he, yeah the mouth to mouth may come into question... :rotfl:

One more thing and then I'm REALLY done-

In the above scenarios for not treating certain patients (their inability to pay, threatening the physician, or feeling that the patient can be better served by referral to another physician) these are all cases where the physician took into acount INDIVIDUAL patients and based on PARTICULAR circumstances decided not to continue with treatment. (That's the longest sentence ever). This is understandable, and to me, seems different than saying you will across the board not treat patients of a certain group - whether that's based on their profession or some other factor.

Personally I don't mind treating Lawyers or their family members, it's the ones related to PHYSICIANS that give me the heebies.
I treat everyone who walks through the door when I work in the outpatient clinic, I treat everyone the same way, with respect and their due dignity till proven otherwise, if you knew everyone's story as to how they came to be in the place they are in empathy comes more easily. If you change how you do your job (it is a JOB you know) on the basis of WHO as person is as to the PROBLEM they have, you are going to screw up and then you will get your tush sued!

My private practice does not accept new patients at this time due to size alone, I have people from all walks of life and accept this, they need my medical care not my judgement. I will not tolerate offensive language or abuse in my office (of me, my staff or other patients). BUT everyone gets a fair chance till they prove to me otherwise. They few who have been asked to leave the practice have done so without any problems, and only one was due to anything but narcotic abuse (ie double doctoring and lying to me about it).

In my med school we had to recite the hippocratic oath at graduation, perhaps you should read it. The words still ring true.

Isn't there a doctor on the boards that was sued frivioulsy? I'd LOVE to hear what she has to say about this topic.

And while I'm on my soap box, it seems everyone is talking about how they don't discriminate and take all patients, yet the inner city/rural areas have physician shortages. Are you all SURE you don't discriminate on some level?

you are right there are huge doc shortages esp in the rural area I live in, but you can only see so many folks per day, I usually see about 6 per hour in my office and it can take up to 3 weeks to get an appt. my record for a 10 hr clinic shift was 79, but you can only work so much or you get fried. I think either more docs are needed or the patients need to be better informed as to why they need to see a doc.

I think Pathdr was making a point about where we choose to practice. By and large, dr's choose to practice in suburban areas where the patients are wealthy and all have health insurance and aren't terribly demanding, and are more or less like ourselves. To some extent, it's a preference for a certain lifestyle for ourselves, but on the other hand, it's an avoidance of the type of patients we have biases against.

It takes a conscious effort to choose to work in a rural or inner-city environment, and I would agree that some prejudice on our parts does play into the type of practices we set up.

Thanks guys for seeing my point. I personally don't see my very, very, very early decision not to be involved in the care of certain attorneys any different than a physician who chooses to set up shop in a wealthy suburb. In the end, I think most people are good as I certainly don't intend ANY harm to ANYONE with my choices. But people have the right to do what they're comfortable with and what's in their best interests. That doesn't make us callous, that makes us human.

Oh yeah, i totally see where you are coming from. I for one will be one of those doctors that probably will not set up shop in those extremely underserved areas although myself I am a minority....I think that it is always easy to pass judgement but once we start analyzing what *we* are doing it makes you go hmmmmmm......

Path, I'm just wondering how you intend to implement this exclusion in your actual practice? I don't understand how, sitting at the other end of the hospital, behind a microscope and dictaphone, you're going to know that kind of information about your patients? It's an easy thing to claim you won't provide care for them, when it's nearly impossible to implement. And when you apply for a job at a hospital, and tell them, "By the way, I won't provide care for lawyers," no one will hire you.

For those of us practicing in a real office, face to face with patients, and not just seeing their names on paper, excluding attorneys and their families becomes a ridiculous proposal, I think.

The reason I don't practice in an inner-city or extremely rural setting is easy: I don't want to live there. I have worked hard enough to want to provide a safe place for my children to grow up, where we can access civilization within a certain period of time. (i.e. Physicians don't choose against practicing in Alaska just because they hate Alaskans, they might not want to live in a cold place that is isolated from the rest of the US, no offense to those who LOVE IT IN ALASKA).

If the people who live in those areas want to come to me, I'm more than happy to participate in their care. I don't practice here just so I can exclude them. I'd be happy to see minority patients all day long, and I do provide care for Hmong refugees who live in my community quite frequently. (for the last 7 years, I did practice in a semi-rural setting, but there was no shortage of physicians there)

However, there is the financial implication that if you provide care to all medicaid patients whose insurance reimburses pennies on the dollar billed, you're either going to work in a REALLY crummy office, or you're going to have to work REALLY long hours to pay off your med school loans, a choice NO ONE on this board seems to want to make.

I want to pay off my school bills, live in a safe neighborhood, participate in raising my children, and have enjoyable work.

That's the truth for most practicing physicians, I believe.

Of course while I'm training I will NOT have a choice about whose slides I can read. That kinda breaks down into of those "no doo doo" type of deals, IMHO.

Nope, I'm headed toward a career in research and having observed UP CLOSE what that life is like for a pathologist, I WILL have a choice about whose slides I can lend my expretise in reading to. It's called expert opinion/getting a second opinion and no my opinion will NOT be available to malpractice lawyers. Again, I've seen UP close what that can get you (through a pathologist very close to me) and I'm not interested in spending my time in court defending my diagnosis. Forget the PhD I earned at Hopkins in pathology and the MD I earned from ???? university. No, it will be the client died because of my misdiagnosis not because the patient smoke 20 packs of cigarettes/day. :rolleyes:

And it's a tired, tired arguement to say "I don't want to provide care for inner city folks because I don't want to live there". I know MANY physicians that work in the inner city and don't live there. Bottom line, many physicans want to be "paid" and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. But gee wiz, have the balls (or maybe labia) to admit it.

Man o Man, I can see my stars slowly fading away now...................... :rotfl: