The AMA is a voluntary physician advocacy organization, and whatever canon of ethics they espouse is certainly not binding on non-members. I searched, and Dr. Cassell is not a member.
The ethics rules he would need to worry about are those from his state medical board, and my understanding is that Florida takes a pretty casual approach to such things. That’s one reason why it has become the “Colombia of prescription drugs”, supplying most of the country’s diverted prescription narcotics.
He’s still an asshole, but I seriously doubt anyone is in a position to do anything about it.
Commensurate to their education, doctors (IMO) are some of the most politically uninformed/misinformed people out there. They also tend to be very utilitarian in their political stances–they vote for the candidate that will put more money in their pocket, regardless of his stances on anything else or the effect his policies will have on others.
I refuse to engage patients on politics, even when they try to draw me out. (Of course, my politics are diametrically opposed to those of most of my patients, so it’s probably a good idea in terms of self-preservation.) Using the inherently unequal doctor-patient relationship to influence someone’s politics, or treating someone differently based on them (including making them feel less welcome in your office) is extremely unprofessional, and I would immediately stop referring patients to this doctor.
You, and he, are being disingenuous. His message, “seek urologic care elsewhere.” is an imperative sentence, which “gives advice or instructions or that expresses a request or command.” Cite. Ergo, he is advising or instructing, or expressing a request or command to, his current or prospective patients who are Democrats to find another doctor. Or else what?, you may ask. Well, he said, “Changes to your healthcare begin right now,” so although he didn’t specify exactly what happens now, the inference is he will either not treat you or he will give you a different (substandard?) level of care - a “change” in your healthcare. One of the choices that is not inferable from his words is “or he will treat you just the same as his Republican patients.” Otherwise, he would not have posted a sign.
Hey, 'luci, I’m getting tired of Clothy’s tired old refrain. Could you step over to the mic and give us a chorus of the “ram it, jam it, cram it” song that you came up with last week?
Is he a member of the AMA? If he is, then he should resign or conform his conduct to their standards.
If he is not, why should he care what the AMA says?
Or do you believe that the AMA is some kind of legislative authority for all things medical?
If so, I hope you’ll hop over to the pharmacist conscience clause thread, because the APhA (the analogous body for pharmacists) has announced their support for pharmacists to refuse to supply medication if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Are you reluctantly adopting that view, based on the APhA’s endorsement?
You might want to be more specific as to a meaning of the term “ethical” that you can both agree on. In view of DoctorJ’s post above, friend Bricker could well claim that your question is too vague.
I believe it’s ethically neutral, in the same way that choosing chocolate over strawberry or vanilla is ethically neutral. He’s not practicing emergency medicine. He has a right to choose his patients.
Thank you for pointing this out, and I’m quoting it with the hope that more people may actually read it.
Stop talking about oaths as if they mean anything. If a doctor does take some oath - good for them! It doesn’t mean anything. It’s not legally binding. And even if it was, there’s nothing in it that says, “I have to treat every patient that wanders into my office.”
This isn’t liberal at all. It has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative politics. So I’m still waiting for logic.
Obviously he doesn’t even get to refuse treatment if his sign all but tells Democrats go “seek urology care elsewhere.”
As has been shown, if the sign said, “Blacks/Jews seek urology care elsewhere” he wouldn’t be discriminating or refusing care. He set it up so that he doesn’t get the chance, they’ve gone elsewhere.
The man is an asshole. And by extension, your defense of him makes you an asshole. Nothing he did was illegal. It’s only questionably unethical, but even that means nothing. And it’s barely even unprofessional. The simple fact of the matter is that the man is an asshole, and is not worthy of your praise. I know it was heart breaking to see the liberal media frame O’Keefe, but there will be other douche bags you can rally around. This is not your man.
I don’t see why you’ve drawn the lines you have between ethical and unethical refusing of service. Could you explain what’s behind your decisions here?
I would invoke the “Random Jerk” rule: the actions of a random jerk are not politically significant, his views are not worthy of examination, and any time spent discussing him is time better spent gathering wildflowers.