Doctor's vist turned sermon

[aidanjm]

Don't doctors have an obligation to practice good medicine, though? (Good medicine defined as medicine informed by the relevant scientific findings). The medical view of homosexuality is that it is a normal variation of sexual orientation and that it doesn't require 'treatment'. Knowing whether a patient is lesbian or gay is relevant for doctors because lesbian and gay people have some different health risk factors than heterosexual people. For example, there is research that lesbian women smoke more than heterosexual women, and have different risks of various types of reproductive cancers (due to them being less likely to have children). Questions around these issues might be appropriate to ensure that health care is tailored to a lesbian patient. But slipping a lesbian patient photocopies of Buy-bull passages condemning sodomites to death is beyond the pale and utterly unprofessional.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree that it wasn't unlawful.

It is an abuse of the doctor's privileged knowledge about the patient, though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If the PA did nothing wrong then why did she get canned?

We don't know the whole story. We don't even know what the literature said? There may be more to it then the story indicates. For instance, why was a complaint filed against Cigna?

Did I say the PA did nothing wrong? No, nor did I imply it. Indeed, your statement is verification of mine - it worked itself out without the need for legal interventions.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If the PA did nothing wrong then why did she get canned?

We don't know the whole story. We don't even know what the literature said? There may be more to it then the story indicates. For instance, why was a complaint filed against Cigna?

Did I say the PA did nothing wrong? No, nor did I imply it. Indeed, your statement is verification of mine - it worked itself out without the need for legal interventions.

Not if she is free to try and impose her beliefs on someone again. The PA is being paid for a medical service, not an political/moral opinion. If that's what she wants to do I suggest she become a minister.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Not if she is free to try and impose her beliefs on someone again. The PA is being paid for a medical service, not an political/moral opinion. If that's what she wants to do I suggest she become a minister.

Why not? Aren't you free to push your beliefs on anyone that will listen? If someone handed me such a flyer and I was disgusted, I would have thrown it in the trash, not filed a lawsuit. People are free to push their beliefs on you, just as you are free to ignore them.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Not if she is free to try and impose her beliefs on someone again. The PA is being paid for a medical service, not an political/moral opinion. If that's what she wants to do I suggest she become a minister.

Why not? Aren't you free to push your beliefs on anyone that will listen? If someone handed me such a flyer and I was disgusted, I would have thrown it in the trash, not filed a lawsuit. People are free to push their beliefs on you, just as you are free to ignore them.

Did she file a lawsuit or a complaint? I think it was just a complaint with the state medical advisory board or something like that??

complaint filed with the Division of Medical Quality Assurance

As far as I know, that's not a lawsuit.

That's what you do when a professional oversteps their bounds. If she wanted a moral opion she could get that for free from a local church.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Did she file a lawsuit or a complaint? I think it was just a complaint with the state medical advisory board or something like that??

I read the thing yesterday and don't remember. The point stands, regardless. If she didn't want to read the literature, why didn't she just pitch it? Is it worth getting your panties in a bunch when she could have just as easily thrown it away? I guess I just think this is blown out of proportion.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree that it wasn't unlawful.

It is an abuse of the doctor's privileged knowledge about the patient, though.

Good point, I hadn't considered that. I still think we're stretching the litigiousness of our society. I'd rather see it handled privately. But there may be a case there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Did she file a lawsuit or a complaint? I think it was just a complaint with the state medical advisory board or something like that??

I read the thing yesterday and don't remember. The point stands, regardless. If she didn't want to read the literature, why didn't she just pitch it? Is it worth getting your panties in a bunch when she could have just as easily thrown it away? I guess I just think this is blown out of proportion.

I'm sure the PA "thought" she had the persons best interests in mind, but how is giving religious anti-gay literature to a medical patient in anyway defensible. yeah, most people would throw it away, but WHY should they have to take the abuse of being called a sinner because the PA had access to look at their medical file??

It can be argued that it would be just as easy (and far more professional) for the PA in question to just butt out of things that aren't any of her business.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree that it wasn't unlawful.

It is an abuse of the doctor's privileged knowledge about the patient, though.

Good point, I hadn't considered that. I still think we're stretching the litigiousness of our society. I'd rather see it handled privately. But there may be a case there.

I don't think she is suing, is she? I thought she just registered a complaint with the State medical board. Perhaps the medical board will investigate and reprimand the physicans assistant.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Dissipate

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?

Right, because if anyone ever does ANYTHING that ever offends you, you have a right to shut them down. :roll:

I think what this woman did was ridiculous, but if this lesbian was offended she should have gone to a different doctor's office.

Guess you also suppose busineeses only serving whites and not blacks ect huh? Leave it totally up to them.

You have to serve everybody,but you can call the white customers "stupid honkeys".

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
But slipping a lesbian patient photocopies of Buy-bull passages condemning sodomites to death is beyond the pale and utterly unprofessional.

And to that, it calls into question the objectivity of the physician.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Dissipate

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?

Right, because if anyone ever does ANYTHING that ever offends you, you have a right to shut them down. :roll:

I think what this woman did was ridiculous, but if this lesbian was offended she should have gone to a different doctor's office.

Guess you also suppose busineeses only serving whites and not blacks ect huh? Leave it totally up to them.

Yep. Everyone discriminates on a daily basis. Why should businesses be any different?

Marriage could be considered a business deal, and I'm certain race plays a role in that for you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm sure the PA "thought" she had the persons best interests in mind, but how is giving religious anti-gay literature to a medical patient in anyway defensible. yeah, most people would throw it away, but WHY should they have to take the abuse of being called a sinner because the PA had access to look at their medical file??

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that it could have been handled differently by the complainant.

It can be argued that it would be just as easy (and far more professional) for the PA in question to just butt out of things that aren't any of her business.

No doubt you're right. However, like I said, the PA has the right to do this and the complainant has the right to ignore the PA.

 

[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.

 

[CQuinn]

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.

Also named in the complaint is Dr. John R. Hartman, who allegedly deflected Beiler's concerns when she complained to the office.

Common courtesy would have been to not blow her off (allegedly) when she tried to handle things face-to-face.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

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.

Also named in the complaint is Dr. John R. Hartman, who allegedly deflected Beiler's concerns when she complained to the office.

Common courtesy would have been to not blow her off (allegedly) when she tried to handle things face-to-face.

I was under the impression that due to the fact that she spoke with a different doctor, she probably did it over the phone. Why did she not simply complain before leaving the office so that she could confront the responsible party directly?

Though your point is noted and they should not have blown her off.

 

[CQuinn]

You are also assuming the responsible party was still in the office.

I got the impression Pope-Wright was not interested in a confrontation either.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm sure the PA "thought" she had the persons best interests in mind, but how is giving religious anti-gay literature to a medical patient in anyway defensible. yeah, most people would throw it away, but WHY should they have to take the abuse of being called a sinner because the PA had access to look at their medical file??

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that it could have been handled differently by the complainant.

It can be argued that it would be just as easy (and far more professional) for the PA in question to just butt out of things that aren't any of her business.

No doubt you're right. However, like I said, the PA has the right to do this and the complainant has the right to ignore the PA.

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.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
You are also assuming the responsible party was still in the office.

I got the impression Pope-Wright was not interested in a confrontation either.

If that was the case, then yes, I would put much more responsibility on the Doctor. I would hope that such an individual wouldn't do such a thing and simply leave. But I'm sure it's possible.

 

[rahvin]

Licensed professionals are under certain obligations, the need for these requirements are quite simple. Market forces wouldn't stop doctors from destroying peoples lives. The behavior is being handled appropriately, through a complaint to the state board of licensing where the approprate licensensing board can make the decisions with regards to the license.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Licensed professionals are under certain obligations, the need for these requirements are quite simple. Market forces wouldn't stop doctors from destroying peoples lives. The behavior is being handled appropriately, through a complaint to the state board of licensing where the approprate licensensing board can make the decisions with regards to the license.

I agree as well, I think it's reasonable to assume you're expected to keep a profressional additude in certian work enviorments - espcially when they concern someone's person life. I seriously doubt the organization enjoys their employee using the organization as a outlet for anti-gay christian propaganda.

While some people may disagree with the decision that came out of the issuse, it's not up to us to decide.

 

[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...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'm sure the PA "thought" she had the persons best interests in mind, but how is giving religious anti-gay literature to a medical patient in anyway defensible. yeah, most people would throw it away, but WHY should they have to take the abuse of being called a sinner because the PA had access to look at their medical file??

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that it could have been handled differently by the complainant.

It can be argued that it would be just as easy (and far more professional) for the PA in question to just butt out of things that aren't any of her business.

No doubt you're right. However, like I said, the PA has the right to do this and the complainant has the right to ignore the PA.

It may well be that the PA doesn't have the right to do this - the medical board may consider it to be grossly unprofessional behaviour that compromises the care of patients and brings the profession into disrepute.

The patient has the right to register a complaint about this with the relevant state medical boards.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree that it wasn't unlawful.

It is an abuse of the doctor's privileged knowledge about the patient, though.

It's a good thing the doctor didn't tell the patient's girlfriend she was a lesbian

doctor/ patient priviledge, you know. Imagine the horror if her girlfriend would've found out

seriously though, I don't think it would be an abuse of knowledge unless it was shared with someone other than the patient. Is there another issue where abuse of priviledged knowledge has happened in another case?