That’s interesting. I’d always heard that riddle where the doctor says, “I can’t operate on him, he’s my son,” but I never knew why that was. It seems obvious now that you all pointed out that it’s unethical, but somehow it never occurred to me before.
Thanks everyone! 
IANAD, but I am a medicinal herbalist. I am also very wary of treating family, although I don’t have a license or scope of practice laws to worry about.
There are a couple of practical reasons, as well as ethical and emotional ones. First is that if you (general you) give health advice or prescribe something and your S.O. doesn’t follow through on it, you get really annoyed and pissed. If your patient is just a patient, you get annoyed, but it’s not a personal failing - you can leave that annoyance at the office. Not so for a family member. (This is the main reason I refuse to treat my husband anymore.)
Secondly, once you offer free advice, you’ll never be let alone. I know doctors who lie about their professions at parties, simply because once people find out they’re a doc, it’s “I wonder if you could look at…” here and “I’ve got this weird rash…” there and suddenly you’re running a free clinic in your mother-in-law’s living room.
Thirdly, sometimes things go wrong. If you misdiagnose or treat a patient, that sucks. But sooner or later, that will happen. Think how bad that feels, then think how much worse it would feel if it was a family member, and every single day for the rest of your life you had to face the rest of the family of that person you harmed. Much better that there be an outside stranger to blame.
Finally, when someone you love is sick, your brain goes out the window. I can’t tell you how many calls I’ve made to people because I couldn’t figure out what to do for my kid, only to have the same person call me a week later for advice on an identical situation with their kid. You just forget, or overlook things, in times of personal stress.
Medical procedures also involve an exchange of money. Your personal finances may already be intertwined with your girlfriend’s, but it adds a whole new layer of complexity when a medical practice is involved.
Tell me, does she look unnaturally… young?
Does the bathtub have an oddly discolored stain to it?
My pal’s hubby is a GP and has stitched 2 of their kids and set a cast on the third (when they needed it). He treats anyone who asks or appears to need it, as far as I can tell. He’s not averse to the kids going to a pediatrician if he feels they need it and he knows one. He’s so gung ho that I’m averse to answering anything but “Fine, thanks.” when his wife (my friend) asks how I am.
So you are suggesting that you shouldn’t treat people that you wouldn’t treat the same as anyone else. Let’s say I’m an average internist and the presiden comes to see me for a visit. Under your logic, I shouldn’t treat him because the rest of the world would here about it if I were to make any kind of a mistake on the most powerful man in the world. Let’s say the pope falls and sprains his wrist and comes to see me and tells me that god has commanded I prescribe 80 mg’s of oxycotin and fallure to do so would result in me being cast into the lake of fire? I don’t want to violate my oath, but internal damnation doesn’t sound too appealing either…
[nitpick]Well actually. That has nothing to do with ethics whatsoever. The riddle is:
The puzzle is based on the premise that people will think the doctor is male.
[/nitpick]
So if she’s the only doctor in a small town, that’s just tough luck for her family if they get sick or injured?
I think in either of those scenarios it would be acceptable to drink chemical B, shoot the burning Hitler and let the giant squids clean up the mess.
You seem to not only miss the point, but also have to struggle desperately to make your argument.
Consider these reasons (some have already been mentioned) why treating family members can cause problems:
As for your weird examples, let’s put them in the frame of the OP:
If you are married to the President and he has a serious medical condition which will cost him votes, should you treat him privately?
If you are a relative of anyone in an important position and they tell you God has demanded you supply them with drugs and you will burn in Hell if you don’t, then you should certainly have nothing to do with their treatment.
In all of these cases, it’s not just the possibility of bias/malpractice, etc that needs to be avoided, it’s the appearance of it too - even if you do remain perfectly objective and impartial in dealing with it, putting yourself in a situation where third parties can accuse you (albeit perhaps wrongfully) of bias or malpractice is also unwise/unprofessional.
You seem confused over this concept and then seemingly pound at the exclamation and question mark keys. Hmmm… 
Oh indeed.
For example:
a) Rich spouse dies after you treat them
b) relatives complain
c) obviously the police will have to investigate (maybe do an exhumation), since you had motive, means and opportunity
It can lead to family fights. My cousin once asked me for my professional opinion on our Grandpa, who was getting physically weak. I was trying to explain to her why I could not, and we walked into the kitchen where he was sitting, with his portable oxygen tank, next to gas- burning stove. My advice “No open flames near the oxygen tank, ever”, caused her to accuse me off being rude and harsh. She hurt my feelings a great deal and still does not understand that I just did not want Grandpa to die an explosive fiery death.
Yes, just look at the emotions involved.
Your cousin asks you for advice, then turns on you when you give it. :rolleyes:
And presumably you are going to meet up at family gatherings … :smack:
I don’t understand why you say that the riddle has nothing to do with ethics “whatsoever.” In your opinion, why is it that the doctor can’t operate on her own son in that riddle?
Isn’t it because, ethically, a doctor may not operate on close relatives?
-FrL-
Your username is fantastic! Please stay!
The riddle is about people generally assuming that a doctor is male and therefore their brains explode when they’re told the boy’s father died in the accident and then that the doctor says ‘I can’t operate on my son’. It’s a sociological comment in that for a long time (and still now in some groups I’m sure) people would assume ‘male’ when they heard ‘doctor’. The simple answer that the doctor’s a woman and the MOTHER of the boy wouldn’t occur to them. There are other similar riddles. Here’s one:
Again, the answer is that the accountant is his sister.
Aside Mangetout, thanks! /Aside
Well, yes, that is the point of the riddle, that’s what makes it a riddle. But the riddle wouldn’t make any sense to begin with if there weren’t a valid reason for the doctor to say, “I can’t operate, that’s my son.”
To someone unaware of the ethics issue, it wouldn’t make any more sense than a riddle about an auto mechanic: “I can’t change the oil, that’s my son’s car!”
So now we know the reason, and now the riddle makes sense. And that is what Othersider has been trying to get across.
Yeah. We all already know all that. (How stupid do you think we are? :smack: )
I’m asking you why it is that the doctor in the riddle can’t operate on her own son.
Is it not because doing so would be unethical?
Of course that’s why. And that’s the point of the post in this thread which originally brought up the riddle. That post did not show a misunderstanding of the point of the riddle. The post isn’t even talking about the point of the riddle. The post just presents a question (and implicitly offers an anwer to it) about something that happens in the story told by the riddle.
-FrL-