I don’t think either type of prejudice is acceptable, but I would expect the hospital to follow the same procedure and give into the bigot’s demands. As satisfying as it would be to have some bigot kicked out for his or her bigotry, I wouldn’t want a hospital to get sued over it.
Only whites, huh?
I think this would be an appropriate time to round up all the fabulously gay Jews one can find in the hospital and see if they’ll play along. 
My response would be: “Good Luck with that. Goodbye!”
Or, as above, round up the most flamingly gay doctors and nurses to work with them.
“Oh, your new baby is just so Fabulous!”
Sue? Well, I’m sure the Hospital could come up with some Federal or state regs that forbid that sort of thing…
“Heath care on a non-disriminatory basis” refers to the HOSPITAL not discriminating based on race, gender etc. It does not refer to a bigoted patient. BTW, patients make requests all the time- a lady OB-GYN please; or no interns or students please;obviously they didn’t know what to do here.
This patient was in labor- what if the hospital had put her in an ambulance elsewhere & there had been a medical disaster? Malpractice/negligence = $millions. The hospital was stuck- the patient could not be safely moved despite the crazy demands. One knows there will be changes to the hospital admission consent form that all patients have to sign.
As a L&D RN, I would’ve been glad to stay out of that patient’s room but I wonder how the hospital admins found the staff to care for her and her baby. I’m a very fair-skinned hispanic woman and I can’t see my charge nurse asking me “Cyn, aren’t you white? Can you take report on this patient who wants only white people?”
I can see care quality plummeting while admin looks for white-only lab and food services and housekeeping…
I was reminded of this classic Dear Abby column about Jewish contributions to medicine:
Well, I think that’s part of the problem too…
If the mother couldn’t reasonably be moved, there might be some problem with making them pay more for special considerations. Realistically, with medical practice regulated the way it is, it’s probably illegal anyway. I wish it weren’t. Sometimes you just can’t protect families from other members of that family. Boy, do I have some stories about that.
There is the point that health care is somewhat affected by the patient’s response to the personnel doing the health care, so I would guess at first thought that efforts should be made to accomodate their wishes.
The problem of having the “right” staff available at the right time to give the needed care might be handled by a “hold harmless” waiver that specifically warns the patient, and family, that their unusual request, nay demand, could easily endanger their lives if “proper” personnel aren’t available in case of emergency. Unfortunately I don’t suppose that many hospitals have a well tried waiver of that sort on hand so one would have to be made up ad-hoc which can result in a lot of headaches.
On further thought, can a hospital simply refuse to take non-emergency patients?
I wonder what would have happened if they had allowed a black employee in the room. Would the couple demand their money back? Sue the hospital?
Would they win such a case?
It is this kind of violent sickening angry abusive posting that kind of turns a thread in a direction that perhaps it didn’t have to go to. I’ve prayed that you might get some professional help regarding anger. Posts like this only serve to re-inforce this most fervent hope. I wish you well.
Now, as to the O.P. I grew up 5 miles from Abington Memorial Hospital. I have been treated there a few times in the E.R., my father had his aortic valve replaced there. It surprises me not in the least that this happened.
Administrators live at the beck and call of the client, who have behind them A) Moral imperative, B) Money, C) The threat of adverse publicity ( too late on that count here… ), and D) Physical presence. An upset spouse who makes demands may or may not be shown the door. Here is why, IMHO:
There is a serious legal issue at work here. It is called Abandonment, and if one is charged and it is proven, one can lose one’s license. That includes a Hospital, although frankly it’s almost unimaginable that a Hospital would lose certification over a single incident.
At any rate, once a patient is admitted into a Hospital, there is the commencement of a chain of treatment. If that chain is broken in any way, the party or parties who break it are legally liable for anything that happens as a result. Here’s a simple chain of treatment:
I call and cut my head open.
I call 911.
The Second Alarmers Ambulance Squad comes. ( In fact, that is the name of an ambulance corps that services Abington Memorial Hospital )
I am transported and care is rendered during transport.
I am brought into the E.R., and admitted. I am then seen by an attending E.D. ( Emergency Department) physician. I am assessed, and sutures are sewn in place, treating my injury. After assessing any other injuries, I am discharged and allowed to arrange transport home.
The chain of treatment is as follows:
Montgomery County ( PA) 911 Dispatch.
Second Alarmers responding crew.
Abington Memorial ER staff, and E.D. physician.
The ambulance crew- once they respond and initiate patient contact- cannot cease legally. Once that man had his wife admitted to Abington’s Maternity Floor, they could not abandon her treatment because of his demands. They could not simply “throw the family out”, or anything of that ilk. Forget the lawyers. There is a very clear moral and ethical emperative here, and that supercedes any other issues in all ways.
Unless- and this was clearly NOT the case in the Inquirer article cited above- the patient had to be discharged pre-deliver because off a complication that demanded her immediate transfer( with all proper and legal paperwork approving transfer ), she would remain at Abington until she was fit to leave, post-delivery.
The hospitall could in no way throw her out. Not a single medical staff member would do it. And, the emotionally charged offerings in here notwithstanding, the feelings of staff medical, clerical and support are completely outside the issue.
She was admitted. She was to deliver her baby. She delivered her baby. The Administration did what they had to do, to insure an uninterrupted chain of treatment within their facility. Now, to push the story a bit farther, if inded a physical confrontation occurred, the husband would be removed. They STILL wouldn’t remove the expectant mother unless she herself demanded to be released, and even then the General Counsel would doubtless become involved, attempting to keep her there until she delivered. ( I grew up knowing the General Counsel of Albert Einstein Medical Center on North Broad Street in Philly, about…hmm…15 miles down the same roadway that Abington is on. When I was a boy candystriper, we used to talk a lot… ).
As quoted above, Richard L. Jones, the President of the hospital, can well afford the lofty attitude of saying that this is morally reprehensible. As the Hospital President, he is in the business of filling up beds. This is bad publicity, and he would hate that. Why not do an in-depth interview with the General Counsel, and see what she/he has to say on this topic? I sense it will be radically different than Mr. Jones’, and will be in line with the legal demands of Chain of Treatment.
Cartooniverse
Non-emergent care I believe they can refuse, as long as there is an alternative available. If you have an emergency room and someone presents, you have to treat them (at least to the point they are not in danger), or move them to a specialist center if you don’t have the ability to treat their injuries (think trauma center).
I would say that as a manager I would do the same thing. Some have kinda said the same thing but the way I see it you have a situation you know is hostile for a set group of people, that’s a textbook hostile workplace if you make them treat this idiot. Instant civil rights violation. Touchy situation all around, I think they did the best they could in a bad situation.
The Administration should have refused the request in the first place, giving the couple the option of staying or leaving. Then the Administration should have given the hospital staff the option of working with the couple or passiing on it. If the couple leaves, the problem has solved itself-if they stay and verbally abuse the staff, the problem will be solved in court later. Under no circumstances should such bigotry be respected.
Moving this to Great Debates.
The doctor would be on the hook if there was a complication during transfer, regardless of the reason given. While Czarcasm’s ideals are mine, the real hospital does indeed have to accomodate distasteful wishes from time to time. Administration in hospitals, like everywhere else, too often do take the path of least resistance. Whether they could transfer them elsewhere would depend on more details then we have.
They should have told the guy to go fuck himself and put whoever they needed in the room. If he gave them any more shit he should have been removed by security. I would also recommend that the baby be immediately removed from these parents and put up for adoption (hopefully by a black couple) but that’s just dreaming on my part.
If a Muslim objected to a Jewish doctor, would the reaction be the same by the Dopers?
From this one it would.
Part of me thinks the hospital should have shown them the door, but the more evil side of me thinks the administration should have said something like:
Dr_Paprika
I think there would be biological problems with that 
I don’t understand the outrage at this. No one was hurt by this. Yes, it was rude. Yes, it’s insulting to blacks. But is it really worthy of so much vitriol?
This may be a really silly question:
It’s established that the husband didn’t want anyone black touching his wife.
What did the WIFE say about this? Was she asked? Did she give a hoot?
A messy and difficult situation. I think Czarcasm has outlined the most decent and reasonable course of action for the hospital.
Which could still get them sued. But sometimes putting yourself at some legal risk is better than acting craven in the face of racism. And you don’t need a “diversity task force” to tell you that.
As to transferring the patient - given the reason, who’d want her and her jerk husband? “Sure, we’d be happy to disrupt our routine and take on this volatile situation. We need more patients like this!”
Even hospitals in mostly white areas are still going to have black staff.