Re: The Ethicist -- Doctor, Bully

From: SmartOB (dr_csbloom@yahoo.com)
Sun Mar 30 18:31:04 2008


On this point I agree completely with Dr. Lisse.

Charles Bloom, MD

-----Original Message----- From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:49 PM To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L Subject: Re: The Ethicist -- Doctor, Bully

Again, utter nonsense.

The point is you must not be discriminatory. Refusing to see black patients, HIV positive patients would be discriminatory.

Refusing to see patients not willing to submit to (fair) arbitration most certainly not. As long as you make no exceptions.

Hmm what about refusing to see lawyers? Probably not discriminatory :-)-O

In the US at present there is as much constitutional right to sue a doctor as having access to healthcare...

.. None WHATSOEVER.

el

On Mar 30, 2008, at 17:29, Dean Huffman wrote: > .
>
> From The NY Times
>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30wwln-ethicist-t.html?ex=1364529 600&en«a70976751eaf27&eiP90&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all >
> - - - -
>
> The Ethicist
>
> Doctor, Bully
>
> By RANDY COHEN
>
> Published: March 30, 2008
>
> The gynecologist I've seen for seven years has begun requiring
> patients to waive their right to a day in court and to accept
> binding arbitration to settle any potential disputes, or she will
> not treat them. I sought care elsewhere but discovered that nearly
> all ob-gyn practices in the area make the same demand. Is this
> policy ethical? KATHLEEN WAGNER, PALM HARBOR, FLA.
>
> --
>
> It is not. The law may allow it, and (except in an emergency)
> medical ethics permit doctors to choose their patients, but a
> doctor's criteria for choosing are still subject to scrutiny. Your
> doctor has instituted a dismal policy that compels patients to
> surrender a basic legal right in order to receive medical care.
>
> If a single physician were so skittish about malpractice suits (or
> so uncertain of her own skill) that she would see only patients who
> would forgo access to the courts, no problem: you could walk down
> the street to another practitioner.
>
> But if all, or nearly all, doctors make the same demand, there's
> nowhere else to go; a fundamental right is eradicated. Conduct that
> is merely inconvenient if pursued by a few people can become
> intolerable when widely adopted.
>
> Your gynecologist might reasonably insist that patients try
> mediation as a first step. But she may not, even inadvertently, be
> part of a group action to bully patients into surrendering access to
> our legal system.
>
> There are some rights we can be pressed into waiving.
> Confidentiality agreements limit our ability to express ourselves;
> noncompete agreements limit our employment choices. Other rights are
> sacrosanct. We may not sell a kidney or work for less than the
> minimum wage or hire a guy to shoot us in the kidney for $2 an hour.
>
> The right to our day in court should be among the inviolable.
>





use when must restrict search to only the ob-gyn-l forum...
Enter search keywords:
Returns per screen: Require all keywords:

Return to  OB-GYN-L Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net
Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Wed Jul 2 04:49:05 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.