It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc
So you want to ban people for beliefs? What other feelings and beliefs do you think should be a dis qualifier for a profession in your wisdom?
Nope, never said that but when their beliefs affect their work then yes! for example would you think it acceptable for a solider to refuse to follow orders due to their belief system?
The doctor may be fired by her employer, and that's fine. She may go out of business as word gets around, and that's fine too. However, do we really want the state to strike people from the rolls just because we dislike their feelings on certain subjects? Use the coercive power of the state to punish people we don't like? That's just another form of bigotry, IMHO.
Its nothing about hurt feelings, and had you answered my previous point to you which was.....
Lets put this another way, the baby and her gay moms are in a car crash and the only person at the scene was this doctor, she refuses to treat them as she has strong religious beliefs, would this be acceptable?
I'd understand where you are coming from.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc
Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc
Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...
Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes in this case there was no delay or risk. However lets say the change meant a five minute delay in the waiting room, that's not much so still ok right? Or what if it meant going a different facility half an hour away? That's not really so much compared to protecting religious freedom is it? What about a days delay or a week?
At some point you have to draw a line and when it comes to medical care being affected by bigotry I would like the line to be at zero.
originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc
Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...
Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.
And every example you gave there is acceptable to place the patients care to another doctor. Her belief system is not a valid reason to refuse treatment!
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc
So you want to ban people for beliefs? What other feelings and beliefs do you think should be a dis qualifier for a profession in your wisdom?
Nope, never said that but when their beliefs affect their work then yes! for example would you think it acceptable for a solider to refuse to follow orders due to their belief system?
The doctor may be fired by her employer, and that's fine. She may go out of business as word gets around, and that's fine too. However, do we really want the state to strike people from the rolls just because we dislike their feelings on certain subjects? Use the coercive power of the state to punish people we don't like? That's just another form of bigotry, IMHO.
Its nothing about hurt feelings, and had you answered my previous point to you which was.....
Lets put this another way, the baby and her gay moms are in a car crash and the only person at the scene was this doctor, she refuses to treat them as she has strong religious beliefs, would this be acceptable?
I'd understand where you are coming from.
A soldier is employed to do a certain thing and can be fired for refusing to obey orders as a consequence. I already said that her employer has every right to fire her if she has one. If she is employed she is hired to provide a service to the satisfaction of the employer and if she cannot do that than the employer has the right to terminate her.
First of all, a physician is neither legally nor ethically obligated to treat anyone at a car crash, but I see where you are getting at.
If you are the only physician available, it is not ethical to transfer care. Part of the ethics of transferring care is having another equally qualified provider in a reasonable distance who can assume care in a timely manner, if none of those conditions are met, you are ethically obligated to continue care until said conditions can be met, then you can ethically transfer care. To do otherwise is known in malpractice law as "patient abandonment."
In this case, there was no patient/Dr relationship--she hadn't even been seen by the physician. Part of "patient abandonment" involves having seen the person--how can you "abandon" someone you have not met? Secondly, as an equally qualified Dr saw the patient at the same appointment time in the same facility, the above mentioned criteria for proper ethical transfer of care were met. Nobody was abandoned and nobody was denied medical care.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes in this case there was no delay or risk. However lets say the change meant a five minute delay in the waiting room, that's not much so still ok right? Or what if it meant going a different facility half an hour away? That's not really so much compared to protecting religious freedom is it? What about a days delay or a week?
At some point you have to draw a line and when it comes to medical care being affected by bigotry I would like the line to be at zero.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc
Because her bigoted religious views were superseded by the patients human rights!
Not sure if you are a "Navy Doctor" but I bet you would have been court marshalled if you even dreamed of doing the same whilst working in the Navy (assuming you did!)
One's right to care does not obligate someone else to serve you. If a physician feels they cannot objectively care for you, regardless the reason, they are ethically and morally bound to find you the same quality of care with someone else and recuse themselves. No sane person wants a doc who does not get along with them treating them--such medical relationships never work well.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc
Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...
Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Yes in this case there was no delay or risk. However lets say the change meant a five minute delay in the waiting room, that's not much so still ok right? Or what if it meant going a different facility half an hour away? That's not really so much compared to protecting religious freedom is it? What about a days delay or a week?
At some point you have to draw a line and when it comes to medical care being affected by bigotry I would like the line to be at zero.
The line is at zero.
But for some reason, the AMA is allowing this crap to slip through the cracks.
... or maybe they're not and at some point will start pulling the licences of these so-called medical practioners.
Or maybe they're waiting for someone to drop dead in a medical emergency situation because of some radical religion-first doctor reneging on their sworn duties, before they finally take steps to enforce laws already set in place to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.
It seems apathy is the new religion these days.
"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Meh, just find a new doctor."
Instead of:
"Doctor doesn't want to treat you because you don't fit into their personal belief system ? Why the hell is this doctor allowed to operate a public medical practice ?!"
originally posted by: UnBreakable
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc
Morality and patient care far supersede your proclomation of the thought police...
Who says? You? Why do you get to decide what is moral and reasonable for someone else? The Dr. in question met the legal and ethical requirements for proper transfer of patient care--what difference does it make why she did it? I've transferred care because me and the patient could not agree on the treatment plan (usually involving them wanting more narcotics and me wanting to give no narcotics) or being rude to staff. Not all Dr/patient relationships work out and both the Dr. and the patient have every right to part ways if either party is not happy nor comfortable with the situation. As long as I transfer care in the above described manner, it is both legal and ethical.
The examples you gave seem to involve patient/doctor disagreements. Would it not be different in this case? The patient is a baby. The doctor refusing care is based on praying to God because of the patients parents sexuality. Is this taught in medical school?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc
Personally I do think having a certain degree/profession does put certain responsibilities on a person. Appreciate this may come partly from living in a country where education is still largely state funded.
If your house was on fire would you consider it ok for the fire brigade to check your race/religion/sexuality before assisting?
Existing case law conveys the well-established default rule that initiation of the doctor-patient relationship is voluntary for both parties. But there is a catch – physicians are only free to refuse to accept a prospective patient if their reason for doing so is not prohibited by contract (e.g., with their employer or an insurance company) or by law.
And there are several laws at the state and federal level that prohibit certain types of discrimination in the context of offering public accommodations – including discrimination against patients. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits physicians and hospitals receiving federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid (so read: nearly everyone), from discriminating against patients on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Some states have expanded on this to cover medical personnel and health care facilities beyond the funding “hook” and to include additional protected categories. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, for example, a number of states prohibited licensees from categorically refusing to treat infected patients when the licensee possessed the skill and expertise necessary to treat the condition presented. Some states also have laws and licensing requirements applicable to the medical context that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or medical condition.
. . . Michigan, doctors can refuse to treat a gay person, or their children, citing religious freedoms.
However, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics have taken a strong stance against this practice and have prohibited it in their ethics rules, which are only advisory.
"Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination," the AMA said in a statement, adding the AMA encourages "diversity, awareness and cultural sensitivity in the medical profession."
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Annee
LOL
The AMA Ethical Code:
"We encourage you not to discriminate. But you know... do whatever your little heart desires. In fact, we no longer even require you to take an oath of ethics because it's just so yesterday."