Comments on: A tricky ethics question http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682 Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682/comment-page-1#comment-2933 Anonymous Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:14:39 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/a-tricky-ethics-question/#comment-2933 I see the problem of treating a plainiff's attorney as being somewhat similar I suppose to treating John Gotti, Al Capone, or any other mobster/extortionist. As a physician, you may not want to treat, but the consequences of denial of treatment (broken bones, cement overshoes, or devastating lawsuit) is potentially the same. Many physicians would not refuse treatment simply out of fear. I see the problem of treating a plainiff’s attorney as being somewhat similar I suppose to treating John Gotti, Al Capone, or any other mobster/extortionist. As a physician, you may not want to treat, but the consequences of denial of treatment (broken bones, cement overshoes, or devastating lawsuit) is potentially the same. Many physicians would not refuse treatment simply out of fear.

]]> By: Chris Rangel http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682/comment-page-1#comment-2932 Chris Rangel Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:49:24 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/a-tricky-ethics-question/#comment-2932 Generally I don't think it's a good idea to piss-off the lawyers and I don't think that refusing to treat trial lawyers would be effective if we were actually trying to send a message this way (the lawyers would just draft the "lawyer antidiscrimination act"). However I have to wonder if it ever does really happen that a lawyer can't get regular health care. There is an infamous trial lawyer down in South Texas who has sued tons of doctors and won millions and every doc in the valley knows this guy. I really wonder if he ever has any trouble getting him or his family seen by a physician? Don't burn your bridges . . eh? Generally I don’t think it’s a good idea to piss-off the lawyers and I don’t think that refusing to treat trial lawyers would be effective if we were actually trying to send a message this way (the lawyers would just draft the “lawyer antidiscrimination act”).

However I have to wonder if it ever does really happen that a lawyer can’t get regular health care. There is an infamous trial lawyer down in South Texas who has sued tons of doctors and won millions and every doc in the valley knows this guy. I really wonder if he ever has any trouble getting him or his family seen by a physician? Don’t burn your bridges . . eh?

]]> By: John Anderson http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682/comment-page-1#comment-2931 John Anderson Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:52 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/a-tricky-ethics-question/#comment-2931 Cute. But while I can certainly sympathise, ethically I don't think it has any standing. Legally, it just may squeak by, though I doubt it, but ethically it seems equivalent to a vegetarian doctor refusing to see a patient who may include meat in his diet or a doctor using an Atkins-style diet refusing to treat a vegetarian. Cute. But while I can certainly sympathise, ethically I don’t think it has any standing. Legally, it just may squeak by, though I doubt it, but ethically it seems equivalent to a vegetarian doctor refusing to see a patient who may include meat in his diet or a doctor using an Atkins-style diet refusing to treat a vegetarian.

]]> By: Ross http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682/comment-page-1#comment-2930 Ross Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:46:07 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/a-tricky-ethics-question/#comment-2930 Interesting question. In general, a physician has the right to refuse to see a patient, so long as there is not an emergency or critical ongoing relationship (that would be abandonment), ample notice and/or opportunity to get a new physician has been given by the doc, or there are no additional contractual responsibilities to which the physician has agreed (e.g., a contract to treat a certain class or group of people or employees of a particular business, in which case there may be a colorable breach of contract case). I don't think the physician would have any problem getting representation should the plaintiffs' attorney or his employees decide to sue, however. After all, we lawyers have no consciences and will represent anybody. Interesting question. In general, a physician has the right to refuse to see a patient, so long as there is not an emergency or critical ongoing relationship (that would be abandonment), ample notice and/or opportunity to get a new physician has been given by the doc, or there are no additional contractual responsibilities to which the physician has agreed (e.g., a contract to treat a certain class or group of people or employees of a particular business, in which case there may be a colorable breach of contract case).

I don’t think the physician would have any problem getting representation should the plaintiffs’ attorney or his employees decide to sue, however. After all, we lawyers have no consciences and will represent anybody.

]]> By: Insults Unpunished http://www.medrants.com/archives/1682/comment-page-1#comment-2934 Insults Unpunished Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:44:44 +0000 http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/a-tricky-ethics-question/#comment-2934 <strong>Medical Ethics</strong> I posed a question to db, who is a doctor, about the ethical implications of refusing to accept patients because they are plaintiffs' attorneys or the employees of same. I'm not a doctor and am inclined to say a doctor... Medical Ethics
I posed a question to db, who is a doctor, about the ethical implications of refusing to accept patients because they are plaintiffs’ attorneys or the employees of same. I’m not a doctor and am inclined to say a doctor…

]]>