I don’t think doctors are being singled out. Teachers have to deal with whatever kids come in the door, for example. Would a teacher be justified in saying, “if you don’t support my politics, I won’t teach your child?” I don’t think many would argue yes. Would a police officer be justified in refusing to answer a call to a house because the owner wouldn’t buy tickets to the policeman’s ball? If these examples are not justified, then what makes a doctor different?
I believe doctors have a duty not to let personal values interfere with their work. That said a doctor should be allowed to refuse any patient on any legal grounds so long as they cause no danger to that patient and so long as that patient can go to another doctor. So in an emergency situation anyone like this doctor must do their job regardless of their feelings towards the person or people they are healing. But in normal situations they should have the same legal ability to refuse customers as any other person in buisness.
So this doctor did nothing wrong, as it seems from the story that he/she will provide adiquate means by which the patient can find another doctor. This only raises the theoretic question of what would happen if some individual was refused by all doctors and whether there is or should be a human right to be able to seek medical help from a doctor in non emergency situations.
I clearly remember back in the mid1960s when the only physician in my grandparent’s town announced he would not accept patients on Medicare because it was socialized medicine. (He didn’t have any qualms about private insurance, however) The next closest doctor was in the county seat, 10 miles away, the closest after that were 20 miles away. The town had no public transit, and the only way to travel without a car was the Greyhound bus that came through a couple of times a day.
Unethical? Maybe.
Immoral? Probably
Legal? Absolutely
I’m not so sure it’s kosher but a doctor should certainly be allowed to choose their patients. He’s given her a referral and made himself available for emergency treatment for a month so he’s not leaving her without medical care.
I don’t think this is a particularly good bed side manner.
Marc
Do we know the doctor refused the patient because of her politics? Maybe he figured she was a litigation risk?
Based on what the doctor said in the news story, it is clear his decision was based on her political views and philosophy:
Public school teachers are government employees and shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. Private schools discriminate all the time, though. But it’s the school that sets the standards, and the teachers have to comply.
Thanks. Sorry I didn’t try the link. I thought it required registration. Now I’ve read it and my foolish question is answered.
You’re a traveller and come to what you know will be the last hotel for quite some time. The innkeeper says, “Sure you can have a room. Just sign my petition to ban gay marriage.” You refuse and go on your way. Is the innkeeper in his rights? If we go by the government employee standard, yes. I think the burden of proof is on the person refusing the service to prove that it is reasonable to do so.
In Spain, healthcare personnel can refuse to perform a procedure based on religious/ethical beliefs (that is, if you’re an atheist nurse you can still refuse to do something because it goes against the Hyppocratic Oath). They must record their “conscientious objection” with the local board, and the grounds for it, before the procedure comes up (that is, they can’t refuse to do it when the patient is already there). This most commonly comes up with abortion, but I understand a Jehova’s Witness nurse could refuse to take part in transfussions and transplants.
They can not refuse to treat a particular patient based on anything other than “I just don’t know what is it she has, after running the whole battery of tests at my disposal, so I’d like to ask for a more-experienced colleague’s opinion” or “she’s ok on my side; given her history and symptoms I recommend suchandsuch other specialty.”
Patients can not refuse to be treated by a doctor based on prejudices, even if they are supposed to be rooted in religion (there have been troubles with Muslim husbands refusing to let the wife be examined by a male doctor, or to let her undress for a female doctor, or to leave the room while the wife is being examined; in a small town, the only doctor may happen to be a guy).
There is a regulation indicating that when the family of a minor would refuse a blood transfussion due to religion (i.e., Jehova’s Witnesses), and said transfussion is necessary for the child’s survival, medical personnel MUST perform it. Their duty is to save the kid’s life, not his parents’ conscience.
I can’t recall a single instance of medical personnel lobbying patients. The closest thing they do would be setting up a donations box for the Red Cross or Medicus Mundi, and nobody keeps track of who’s giving or how much.
In reality, it’s financial suicide to run a business that alienates customers, which is why you don’t hear too many stories of people doing these things. The fact that it’s the only hotel in the area is irrelevant. No one has a right to a motel room wherever one wants to go. The innkeeper also has the right to only rent rooms between the hours of 1 and 2pm if he wants, or have his customers pay him with a song and dance. He also has the right to board up the building and retire.
These kinds of business decisions have an effect on the bottom line eventually, which is why one shouldn’t worry about such business practices in the long run. Let these folks learn their lesson in the poor house instead of trying to enforce involuntary servitude on everyone in the service sector.
In the case of medicine, suppose a doctor only wants to treat the indigent, yet a wealthy man walks into her shanty-town clinic and wants to pay for her services for a non-emergency. Should she be required to treat him? I say no. She probably would, as most doctors are caring people, but if she really wants to focus her efforts on the poor, what’s wrong with that? And is that really any different from the OP situation?
It used to be the case that an innkeeper was required to give his services to anyone who would keep the peace and pay the bill. Somewhere along the way, this seems to have gotten lost, in the interest of “personal rights” and other such folderol. Very detrimental to civilization.
Cite? Can you point to me laws in the United States or even English common law that reqired innkeepers to give their services to anyone who could pay and remain peaceful?
Marc
Don’t know if this will count as a cite, but Felicity Heal in Hospitality in Early Modern England notes that at least to the 16th century it was custom–but not law–that innkeepers were to serve untroublesome customers. On the other hand, though, “untroublesome” for the most part meant “gentlemen or social betters,” so let’s not imagine that early modern England was a much kinder civilization. The riff-raff like you and me would likely be turned away point blank.
'Course, if you were turned away by an innkeeper, you wouldn’t have had much legal recourse even if there had been a law, seeing as how the court system in most regions in England at the time were sketchy at best. Pursuing a lawsuit in 16th-century England was significantly more difficult than it is in 21st-century
America, to say the least.
[sub]Disclosure: Dr. Heal was my supervisor at Oxford.[/sub]
Actually, that’s not quite the law you’re looking for. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employment discrimination. The rest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields members of certain protected classes from discrimination in certain public places, such as public schools, places of public accomodation (hotels and restaurants) involved in interstate commerce, facilities or organizations that receive federal funding, etc. To my immediate recollection, there’s nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, that would prevent a doctor who operates a private clinic which receives no federal assistance of any kind, and whose patient base is so limited that it cannot be construed as to move in interstate commerce, from discriminating as to patient care. I’m sure there are some federal precedents out there that would make such a practice difficult, and it would surprise me if there weren’t medical regulations touching on such discrimination, but I don’t practice health law, and my civil rights practice is limited to volunteer litigation for the ACLU in my little spare time. Any “co-counsel” out there know more about this? Doctors, perhaps? Quagdop?
Also…
As others have noted, the Civil Rights Act in this case does not extend to political affiliation or belief.
If you mean what is the law, I don’t know the answer.
If you mean how should it be, then I pretty much agree with what **Mr. Moonlight **said.
The 30-day notice is a requirement of the law, at least here in North Carolina. As long as we do that, we can let a patient go for any reason, subject to the obvious anti-discrimination exceptions.
I have known of people who had to leave town because of this. We have, essentially, one nephrology group in Greensboro. They had a particularly abusive patient who never made her dialysis appointments and just showed up at the ER for emergent treatment. They eventually told her that she would not be their patient anymore, which meant she could not get dialysis at any of the local centers, and if that meant she had to move, well, she should have thought about that before being so abusive to the nursing staff and the system in general.
It is not uncommon for a doctor to refuse a procedure or refuse to take a patient because of fear of litigation, either from the patient’s history or from the patient bringing it up in an interview. It isn’t good, but a lot of doctors see it as a necessity for survival. That’s what I got from the doctor’s comments; her tone suggested to him that she had a good chance of bringing litigation against him if something went wrong, and he didn’t want to take the risk.
Is that right? No. I would probably avoid referring my patients to this guy from now on, partially because of his letting this patient go, and partially because of the way he brought politics into the mix in the first place. It isn’t appropriate, and it certainly isn’t professional.
The problem with that is drawing the line. A patient with high blood pressure has a medical issue that requires consistent monitoring, and which can eventually be life-threatening. That shouldn’t prevent him from being discharged from a practice.
Important Point
There were two peoples’ health & welfare affected. The mother, and the baby. Should the baby be penalized for the mother’s political views?
I say, the neglect of the baby puts the physician in the wrong.
It might or might not, if only the mother was involved, but it is definately wrong in context.
You are correct in that the would-be lodger who is turned away for having refused to sign an anti-gay marriage has no recourse under the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I was hoping that a reference to Title II would at least partially satisfy MGibson’s curiosity as to laws in this country that prevent innkeepers from discriminating against potential patrons. It reads:
“all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”