posted
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
[ January 13, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: ellie ]
Posts: 156 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 156 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 265 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 )
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?
Posts: 64 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2043 | From: WI | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 34 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by efex101: 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.
I think it boils down to selfpreservation, doing whatever you have to, to protect youself and your families interests.
Posts: 1964 | From: Bethesda, MD | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 34 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2043 | From: WI | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
[ January 15, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: ellie ]
Posts: 156 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ellie: Anywho, I still think that the ethics of a physician are to treat patients. No matter their status, period. Ellie
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.
Posts: 1964 | From: Bethesda, MD | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2043 | From: WI | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.......
Posts: 419 | From: Maine | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by efex101: 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.
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?
Posts: 1964 | From: Bethesda, MD | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2043 | From: WI | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic