That was my first thought, despite his protestations. Looks like a sound if sneaky way of weeding out the sue-happy patients to me. Personally I’d be totally floored if a Doctor bought up politics at all when treating me. Just bad bedside manner talking on such contentious topics. 
Sorry Guy, that just says the hotel can’t discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It doesn’t say you can’t discriminate based on political affiliation or whether you root for the Cowboys or the Redskins.
Marc
From the American Medical Association’s Council On Ethical And Judicial Affairs, section 8.10:
“Physicians are free to choose whom they will serve…Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor withdraw from the case without giving notice to the patient, the relatives or responsible friends sufficiently long in advance of withdrawal to permit another medical attendant to be secured.”
This represents an opinion; specific states have, as Doctor J notes, codified the notice requirement into law. Physicians may decide for a variety of reasons that it is no longer in their interest and/or the best interest of the patient for them to be responsible for the patient’s care, and I doubt this M.D. has violated any statute.
What I think represents poor judgment and poor ethics is to lobby your patients in this manner. It’s one thing to leave out literature in the waiting room, for example, promoting a particular bill. It’s another to harangue patients on their views, which apparently happened in this case. This physician has given his opponents on the legislation in question a weapon to use against it, dubious as that weapon is.
Bad move, doc.
Yeah. Absolutely.
In part because (as happened to Eve) if said doctor and I disagreed so strongly on a given point, I don’t know how comfortable I would feel entrusting my health to him or her.
And from a purely selfish POV, I wanna know so that I can avoid this doctor in the future. I will also tell friends and acquaintances why I refuse to darken this doctor’s door.
That said, though, I’ve only ever encountered a doctor who wore her issues on her sleeve (or in my case, spread her large collection of Focus on The Family magazines in her waiting room) one time. I think that most people who go into business are idiots for isolating any portion of their potential customer base. Sure, it was legal. But it was also dumb.
First of all, everyone on earth should be allowed to discriminate against poeple who like the Cowboys or the Redskins. Those people shouldn’t be allowed out of their houses.
Now, having said that, I know what Title II says. See my response to Duke above, in which I indicated that I was trying to satisfy what I assumed was at least partly a curiousity on your part as to what US laws, if any, prohibited discrimination by hotels. My fault for moving slightly off-topic…
Nitpick numero uno:
I’m slightly miffed at the implication that “peacenik doctors” are repulsed/disgusted/annoyed at the flag and/or signs of support for the troops. Poor example, IMO.
Nitpick numero two-o:
That should be “the law is a ass.” Charlie Dickens.
Doctors don’t have truly “private” practices. The government has imposed barriers to market entry to protect the doctors and their patients. If it is a good idea to avoid compelling doctors to accept patients, it is not because of some mythical right to freely contract, it should be because the costs of compulsion outweigh the benefits.
Is that the case?
Assuming that every individual who is refused treatment can find it elsewhere, including people in the smallest towns, then I see no reason to compel doctors to treat in non-emergency situations. But considering the number of people who lack health insurance entirely, I think this issue is clouded by other, larger concerns.
Actually, I don’t think this is the case. The doctor is dressing it up as a political issue, when in fact he really just doesn’t want a patient who would be perfectly happy to sue him for medical negligence. It’s not about politics at all, it’s about him wanting to cover his ass.
Thanks for the comments, y’all. I appreciate the discussion.
You might have had a point if I had said “doctorS.” But I didn’t. I said “A doctor.” There is therefore no implication of the kind you suggest.
Couldn’t the same be said of anyone who holds a license to do business?
Marc
Yes. If we are going to restrict the supply of professionals with licensing, we’d better be sure that those professionals do everything that’s required of them.
I don’t know if legal compulsion to serve is the best answer in this particular case, but it’s not to be ignored as a possibility. The authorites are already eager to compel those without licenses, to keep them out of the market; it’s not at all a big stretch for them to start compelling those with licenses.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned this yet. If I went to a Doctor, and the he/she seemed rather obsessed about malpractice lawsuits and wanting to make sure I was against them, I would be looking for another Doctor poste-haste. I want a Doctor confident enough in his/her skills that malpractice isn’t a major worry .
It’s like going to a mechanic who tells you that he won’t work on your car if you plan on suing his ass if he ends up breaking it. If he’s worried enough that he’s gonna break it, then I don’t want him touching it.
Remeber kids, 50% of all doctors graduated in the lower 50% of their class.
Precisely, which is why I reckon that this is NOT a political/philosophical issue, even though the sneaky Doc wants to pretend it is; it’s a “I want to make it impossible to be sued for medical negligence” issue.
Given the rate at which OB/GYNs get sued for stuff that’s not anyone’s fault but Mother Nature’s, and the size of the some of the suits brought, I can’t say that the man being concerned about this means he’s a bad or neglectful doctor. It may mean nothing more than he’s well aware of why medmal insurance for OBs is so freakin’ expensive.
You seem to think that malpractice insurance rates are driven by large jury awards, when that simply isn’t supported by the facts. Ob-Gyn rates have risen in the last decade because of poor insurance industry accounting practices, not some mythical “explosion” of huge malpractice awards:
True, but it’s a fact that OB/GYNs have far larger med mal premiums than a lot of specialties, because they have a lot more undesirable outcomes (their fault or not, usually not) than a lot of specialties. The poor accounting practice has increased the cost across the board, but OB/GYNs are at the top end of that, and are thus feeling it more. That’s why they feel the need to be extra-careful about taking on cases at a high risk of litigation.
(BTW, I’m still not defending what this guy did.)
If selling malpractice insurance really was such a profitable business we would see entrepreneurs fighting each other to sell MDs policies.
Instead, there’s a combination of escalating rates (with dramatic increases for certain high-risk specialties) and med malpractice insurers leaving the business. This suggests there’s more of a problem than just “accounting practices” or “bad investments”.
You missed the point of the article I cited. Insurance companies mistakenly perceived profitability in Ob-Gyn in the early 1990’s when it really didn’t exist. That is what created the problem. Now they are losing money big time, and are trying to recoup it by soaking the doctors; the cowardly ones are abandoning the field, leaving the doctors to fend for themselves.
And yet now one can quote any statistics that link increasing rates to increasing claims payouts (which don’t exist). The Bush administration just keeps beating that drum as if it is “common knowledge”, without backing it up with any hard data, which they can’t because it does not exist.
“no one can quote”
carry on.
So now insurance rates have soared (for many docs, not just OB-GYNs), and still insurers are leaving the business (as are physicians in the hardest-hit specialties, who either quit or move to lower-risk locations).
What other significant expense is there for malpractice insurers besides lawsuit costs? Copy paper? Rubber bands?