Doctor's vist turned sermon

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
As far as giving medical advice on the dangers of homosexuality, I can definitely see where a doctor has that ability and/or responsibility. However, the use of Biblical references I think was a little overboard. Slamming religion in peoples face is rarely going to obtain the desired result, unless the desired result was to piss someone off.

However, as the same time, I definitely think she could have just handled this with a face-to-face confrontation with the doctor and just tell him that he can keep his material to himself. People get way to offended over so many little things. If people expect others to be tolerant of their beliefs, they need to show tolerance of other's beliefs as well. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance, but it should involve common courtesy.

Why the fvck should this patient be "tolerant" of a doctor or physicians assistant who is grossly intolerant of her sexual orientation? Common courtesy? Is it courteous to read someone's confidential medical files, then on the basis of private information contained in those files, slip someone some material indicating they are going to hell because of their sexual orientation? I think it is great that the patient has registered a complaint with the relevant medical authorities. Maybe if they reprimand the PA then this kind of bullsh1t won't happen again.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
As far as giving medical advice on the dangers of homosexuality, I can definitely see where a doctor has that ability and/or responsibility. However, the use of Biblical references I think was a little overboard. Slamming religion in peoples face is rarely going to obtain the desired result, unless the desired result was to piss someone off.

However, as the same time, I definitely think she could have just handled this with a face-to-face confrontation with the doctor and just tell him that he can keep his material to himself. People get way to offended over so many little things. If people expect others to be tolerant of their beliefs, they need to show tolerance of other's beliefs as well. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance, but it should involve common courtesy.

Why the fvck should this patient be "tolerant" of a doctor or physicians assistant who is grossly intolerant of her sexual orientation? Common courtesy? Is it courteous to read someone's confidential medical files, then on the basis of private information contained in those files, slip someone some material indicating they are going to hell because of their sexual orientation? I think it is great that the patient has registered a complaint with the relevant medical authorities. Maybe if they reprimand the PA then this kind of bullsh1t won't happen again.

If the doctor has his own practice, I don't think the medical authorities will do anything about it. The only thing this doctor might lose is business. Just like the McDonald's with the "Jesus is the reason" sign...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I really don't think she does have the right to do that unless she has the guts to discuss it with her face to face. According to the article that's not what happened.

No, she has the right to do it regardless of her personal cowardice. Her cowardice only factors into whether or not it was the right thing to do, which we can probably all agree: it was not.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
As far as giving medical advice on the dangers of homosexuality, I can definitely see where a doctor has that ability and/or responsibility. However, the use of Biblical references I think was a little overboard. Slamming religion in peoples face is rarely going to obtain the desired result, unless the desired result was to piss someone off.

However, as the same time, I definitely think she could have just handled this with a face-to-face confrontation with the doctor and just tell him that he can keep his material to himself. People get way to offended over so many little things. If people expect others to be tolerant of their beliefs, they need to show tolerance of other's beliefs as well. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance, but it should involve common courtesy.

Why the fvck should this patient be "tolerant" of a doctor or physicians assistant who is grossly intolerant of her sexual orientation? Common courtesy? Is it courteous to read someone's confidential medical files, then on the basis of private information contained in those files, slip someone some material indicating they are going to hell because of their sexual orientation? I think it is great that the patient has registered a complaint with the relevant medical authorities. Maybe if they reprimand the PA then this kind of bullsh1t won't happen again.

If the doctor has his own practice, I don't think the medical authorities will do anything about it. The only thing this doctor might lose is business. Just like the McDonald's with the "Jesus is the reason" sign...

I would have made the complaint - if for no other reason that there will be a record of complaint against the PA/Doc for misuse of patient doctor privilege. If nothing else the PA will have to explain her conduct to the medical authorities. I dunno the rules but if there are sufficient complaints the doctors license can be suspended.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: bctbct
I disagree, time to shut this down before it even starts. Pharmasists refusing to fill birth control now moral lecturing from doctors. Switching doctors just allows this doc to preach to the next person she disagrees with.

So? If it's so tragic, then the doctor will put himself out of business. The problem would work itself out naturally. I'd like to know what about this act could possibly be construed as illegal. Anyone?

I would think it could fall under sexsual harassment...

Huh, I never even thought of that angle.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I really don't think she does have the right to do that unless she has the guts to discuss it with her face to face. According to the article that's not what happened.

No, she has the right to do it regardless of her personal cowardice. Her cowardice only factors into whether or not it was the right thing to do, which we can probably all agree: it was not.

But by not discussing it with her face to face she runs the risk of someone in the office seeing what the literature is about and deducing that she is gay. It was totally irresponsible of the PA, irresponsible enough to have cost her the job and maybe even her license to pratice.

It's kind of funny that the PA feels strongly enough about it to take that chance when she could have talken to her about it face to face. I'd say deep down she knew she was wrong to talk to her about it since it was none of her business, but still thought she could send her hate literature to her through the "back door".

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bthorny
This IMHO is total BS, the physician's assistant should have their license revoked...

Anybody think this type of proselytizing should be allowed?

Although I think the PA was completely out of line, revoking her license based on a single known incident seems excessive. Give her a warning and give her a chance to shape up.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So here's how it works in a "good" doctor's office.

If a patient ASKS for consult, a good doctor gives appropriate advice. From a health standpoint, lesbians typically don't have many issues. Gay men . . . different ballgame.

If you want to convert, a good MD would refer a person to a quality therapist . . . while acknowledging that best evidence is that homosexuality isn't something that needs fixing. It certainly isn't a medical/psychiatric problem.

A really good physician would KNOW his patient practices a certain religion and would ask, "what does your priest, rabbi, iman, etc have to say about homosexuality.


The PA and MD in the OP are just arseholes. The kind that persist in giving decent Christians a bad reputation.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
As far as giving medical advice on the dangers of homosexuality, I can definitely see where a doctor has that ability and/or responsibility. However, the use of Biblical references I think was a little overboard. Slamming religion in peoples face is rarely going to obtain the desired result, unless the desired result was to piss someone off.

However, as the same time, I definitely think she could have just handled this with a face-to-face confrontation with the doctor and just tell him that he can keep his material to himself. People get way to offended over so many little things. If people expect others to be tolerant of their beliefs, they need to show tolerance of other's beliefs as well. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance, but it should involve common courtesy.

Why the fvck should this patient be "tolerant" of a doctor or physicians assistant who is grossly intolerant of her sexual orientation? Common courtesy? Is it courteous to read someone's confidential medical files, then on the basis of private information contained in those files, slip someone some material indicating they are going to hell because of their sexual orientation? I think it is great that the patient has registered a complaint with the relevant medical authorities. Maybe if they reprimand the PA then this kind of bullsh1t won't happen again.

You know, you have got to get over you intolerance problem. I'm not, nor did I ever, suggest that she should be tolerant of the doctor's belief while he is intolerant of hers. What I suggested is that she should have confronted the doctor directly. As for the tolerance, I think both of them could use a lesson in tolerance. Though like I said, tolerance does not equal acceptance. Neither of them have to accepts the others views as their own, but they should be tolerant enough to be able to talk to each other about it.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bthorny
This IMHO is total BS, the physician's assistant should have their license revoked...

Anybody think this type of proselytizing should be allowed?

Although I think the PA was completely out of line, revoking her license based on a single known incident seems excessive. Give her a warning and give her a chance to shape up.

After thinking about it some over the weekend, Shira I think your right... Outright revoking it would be a little harsh (I overreacted a little bit, we all do that)... I think a warning is in order, with further action if any kind of this type of activity continues...

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The PA and MD in the OP are just arseholes. The kind that persist in giving decent Christians a bad reputation.

Gee, I wouldn't know any docs on ATP&N who are giving the medical profession a bad reputation. :roll:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The PA and MD in the OP are just arseholes. The kind that persist in giving decent Christians a bad reputation.

Gee, I wouldn't know any docs on ATP&N who are giving the medical profession a bad reputation. :roll:

Ouch!

Funny how the supposed freedom loving liberati are so against freedom of speech.....(not that I agree with what the PA did in this instance, but we know that anyone who doesn't toe the liberati mantra deserves, what?).....

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The PA and MD in the OP are just arseholes. The kind that persist in giving decent Christians a bad reputation.

Gee, I wouldn't know any docs on ATP&N who are giving the medical profession a bad reputation. :roll:

Ouch!

Funny how the supposed freedom loving liberati are so against freedom of speech.....(not that I agree with what the PA did in this instance, but we know that anyone who doesn't toe the liberati mantra deserves, what?).....

It's not freedom of speech... it's betrayal of the medical ethics.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The PA and MD in the OP are just arseholes. The kind that persist in giving decent Christians a bad reputation.

Gee, I wouldn't know any docs on ATP&N who are giving the medical profession a bad reputation. :roll:

Ouch!

Funny how the supposed freedom loving liberati are so against freedom of speech.....(not that I agree with what the PA did in this instance, but we know that anyone who doesn't toe the liberati mantra deserves, what?).....

What's the matter . . . foot in mouth again? While some would indeed argue that "bad bedside manners" are just "free speech." It's incredibly bad medicine and bad business. Patients lie to doctors they do not trust. It's very difficult to help patients if they do not trust us. Part of that trust comes from honesty and competency but it also requires clear evidence that we care about our patients' well-being. You don't do that by being an arsehole.

From a business perspective, patients don't sue doctors they like. They rarely refer people to doctors they don't like.

From an ethical standpoint, the MD and PA are inadequate if they don't KNOW that homosexuality is NOT a medical condition. They are certainly free to express their "moral" opposition to homosexuality but it has no place in this particular medical context. Now if it was a gay man with multiple sex partners, a good physician would be remiss if they failed to counsel on behavior change. But the promiscuous gay male would get the EXACT same lecture as the promiscuous hetero male . . . wrap it up . . . TWICE! Better yet, stop risking your health with such poor choices.

I think Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra are some of the WORST products to ever hit the market. They are expensive . . . plus consumed hundreds of millions to develop in the first place. They have significant side effects. They rarely actually "help" what's really wrong with sexual function and relationships.

IMHO, its morally wrong for drug companies to research and market the drug. It's morally wrong for physicians to give out samples. It's morally wrong for insurance companies to cover it . . . particularly when other vital health needs are wanting. But that's just my friggin' opinion! I don't see adults anymore but if I did I wouldn't cut down on a guy's 'script just b/c I disliked the erectile dysfunction market. I doubt I would do it even if I knew he was cheating on the wife (a case that occurred when I was in med school). Now if he was at higher risk of drug-induced blindness or priapism . . . I would give him quality, concise information on why he should forgo these drugs.

People are NEVER means . . . they are ALWAYS ends. No matter what your profession, you should check yourself before pushing your personal BS on others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

This is not a case of open speech. This is concerning a moral contract between a patient and his/her doctor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

This is not a case of open speech. This is concerning a moral contract between a patient and his/her doctor.

I disagree again. Was the patient not treated? Stoned? Burned?

Tacky? Bad taste? Sure. Having a license revoked? No.


No, this is a free speech issue. I can wrap up a newpaper in a moral contract argument in that in spite of free speech it has an obligation to society in a larger sense. It would be bull, but I could do it.

No. Goose meet gander.

The TRUE harm done is that she was offended. Too bad.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

You have a partial point, but we're talking about a doctor, not a journalist. It they want to print that literature and hang it on their wall, or paste it to the front door, that's fine and is covered under freedom of speech. I'd even agree with you if they handed it out to every single patient.

This is more along the lines of that Danish newspaper paper printing the cartoons only in the papers that were being delivered to Muslim households.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

If this guy was selling the "Gay Eliminator" from his office. S/he would lose their license b/c there's no such thing.

The OP is a little hazier but not by much. A physician (or PA) that "selectively" gives out literature is ascertaining based on a patient's profile. That information is privileged and should ONLY be used for a patient's medical care OR an aspect of the patient's life that could reasonably be associated with the patient's (or families') health. That makes it medical care at which point actions are based on "medical information" and "medical ethics" not religious dogma.

If the physician gives EVERYBODY the same information, that is indeed freedom of speech to the extent it is not FALSE medical information . . . ie being gay is a medical condition that can be "cured."

Every good pediatrician asks parents (and kids) about guns in the home, child sexual activity, and use of contraception. Regardless of what a physician's personal morals may be . . . guns need locks (and proper training for kids that may handle them with supervision), sexually active kids need knowledge (and guidance), and sexually active kids definitely need barrier methods. Its the same message even if you are card-carrying NRA and believe in abstinence until marriage. If you know your patients really well you can work in more nuanced conversations that may indeed reveal personal opinions . . . but in the managed care era . . . we don't get that kind of time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

You have a partial point, but we're talking about a doctor, not a journalist. It they want to print that literature and hang it on their wall, or paste it to the front door, that's fine and is covered under freedom of speech. I'd even agree with you if they handed it out to every single patient.

This is more along the lines of that Danish newspaper paper printing the cartoons only in the papers that were being delivered to Muslim households.

Of course it's targeted, and I'll agree it's offensive, but no where is there an asterick in the Constitiution that says you cannot choose who you can speak to.

I'm for letting idiots speak too. Hell, I'm for Passions freedom of speech, and you don't want to know what I think of him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

If this guy was selling the "Gay Eliminator" from his office. S/he would lose their license b/c there's no such thing.

The OP is a little hazier but not by much. A physician (or PA) that "selectively" gives out literature is ascertaining based on a patient's profile. That information is privileged and should ONLY be used for a patient's medical care OR an aspect of the patient's life that could reasonably be associated with the patient's (or families') health. That makes it medical care at which point actions are based on "medical information" and "medical ethics" not religious dogma.

If the physician gives EVERYBODY the same information, that is indeed freedom of speech to the extent it is not FALSE medical information . . . ie being gay is a medical condition that can be "cured."

Every good pediatrician asks parents (and kids) about guns in the home, child sexual activity, and use of contraception. Regardless of what a physician's personal morals may be . . . guns need locks (and proper training for kids that may handle them with supervision), sexually active kids need knowledge (and guidance), and sexually active kids definitely need barrier methods. Its the same message even if you are card-carrying NRA and believe in abstinence until marriage. If you know your patients really well you can work in more nuanced conversations that may indeed reveal personal opinions . . . but in the managed care era . . . we don't get that kind of time.

I didn't say he was right. I said he could. You disagree with him. Fair enough. I do to. Punished for it? No. I think more highly of freedom of speech which is not a right restricted to the press. Now if he were to say "you are gay and should jump off a bridge and die" and use the possible persuasive position as physician to arrange it, then you would have a point. I maintain that helping someone to take a short walk off a short pier is not the same as handing out a stupid piece of paper.

No, again I see this as a free speech right. She can complain and bitch and go to the press and everything else. When one of them tries to silence the other, then I have a problem.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

You have a partial point, but we're talking about a doctor, not a journalist. It they want to print that literature and hang it on their wall, or paste it to the front door, that's fine and is covered under freedom of speech. I'd even agree with you if they handed it out to every single patient.

This is more along the lines of that Danish newspaper paper printing the cartoons only in the papers that were being delivered to Muslim households.

Of course it's targeted, and I'll agree it's offensive, but no where is there an asterick in the Constitiution that says you cannot choose who you can speak to.

I'm for letting idiots speak too. Hell, I'm for Passions freedom of speech, and you don't want to know what I think of him.

But she only knew the person was gay because she had acess to her medical file and there was NO MEDICAL reason to include the biblical literature in the handout.

Edit: and don't forget who is paying whom here. If she wants to exercise her free speech then she should work for a free clinic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari
Find a new doctor.

Right after this doctor loses his license.

I strongly disagree. If papers can print pics of Mohammed, he can hand out literature. That she, you or I might disagree does not alter a thing. She throws it away and goes elsewhere.

Freedom of speech is or isn't in this case.

You have a partial point, but we're talking about a doctor, not a journalist. It they want to print that literature and hang it on their wall, or paste it to the front door, that's fine and is covered under freedom of speech. I'd even agree with you if they handed it out to every single patient.

This is more along the lines of that Danish newspaper paper printing the cartoons only in the papers that were being delivered to Muslim households.

Of course it's targeted, and I'll agree it's offensive, but no where is there an asterick in the Constitiution that says you cannot choose who you can speak to.

I'm for letting idiots speak too. Hell, I'm for Passions freedom of speech, and you don't want to know what I think of him.

But she only knew the person was gay because she had acess to her medical file and there was NO MEDICAL reason to include the biblical literature in the handout.

Edit: and don't forget who is paying whom here. If she wants to exercise her free speech then she should work for a free clinic.

If it can be demonstrated that the knowlege of her being a lesbian was obtained through improper reading of private medical records, then she has a case based on HIPPA. It seems to me that her complaint was based on being "offended".

As far as who was paying the bills, she can and did "fire" them. That has no bearing on this.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think you understand medicine better than that WS. Doctors used to take A LOT of liberties but those days are over . . . arguably they've been litigated away but to some extent medicine has discouraged a lot of old school "voodoo."

If the information that allows "selection" or "targeting" came from the patient's chart . . . that's a great big no-no. There is no right to freely discuss what's in the patient's chart if the conversation takes place outside of normal consult.

1) Office visit - OK
2) Pamplet in bag - not OK (no reason to assume privacy)
3) Grocery store - not OK (same reason as #2)

Again, if the MD's office gives out Old Testament tripe to EVERY patient. It's free speech absolutely. But the PA clearly violated medical ethics by execution. The PA didn't say it in the room b/c s/he did not have a relationship with the patient and was weak . . . granted time may have played a factor as well. But time is not an excuse b/c if it was really for the PATIENT'S health benefit one would take the time to give proper counsel.

The PA was satisfying a personal desire to "minister." That is not protected speech within medicine and if its based on privileged patient information it is unambiguously unethical. That's not my opinion, that's the way it is.

Edit: Just read your post . . . it doesn't matter if the patient was offended or not. The action of the PA was wrong. The typical patient isn't going to say, "Look, HIPPA violation!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think you understand medicine better than that WS. Doctors used to take A LOT of liberties but those days are over . . . arguably they've been litigated away but to some extent medicine has discouraged a lot of old school "voodoo."

If the information that allows "selection" or "targeting" came from the patient's chart . . . that's a great big no-no. There is no right to freely discuss what's in the patient's chart if the conversation takes place outside of normal consult.

1) Office visit - OK
2) Pamplet in bag - not OK (no reason to assume privacy)
3) Grocery store - not OK (same reason as #2)

Again, if the MD's office gives out Old Testament tripe to EVERY patient. It's free speech absolutely. But the PA clearly violated medical ethics by execution. The PA didn't say it in the room b/c s/he did not have a relationship with the patient and was weak . . . granted time may have played a factor as well. But time is not an excuse b/c if it was really for the PATIENT'S health benefit one would take the time to give proper counsel.

The PA was satisfying a personal desire to "minister." That is not protected speech within medicine and if its based on privileged patient information it is unambiguously unethical. That's not my opinion, that's the way it is.

Edit: Just read your post . . . it doesn't matter if the patient was offended or not. The action of the PA was wrong. The typical patient isn't going to say, "Look, HIPPA violation!"

My knowledge of medicine is peripheral, my knowledge of HIPPA is not. If you were to note from the post above yours, you would see that I said that IF medical records were read to obtain this information, then it is a violation of the law. She has a case. IF it were common knowledge, then it is not. That is something the lawyers will have to sort out.