Lactic Folly Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Do you really want someone to operate when they believe the outcome will not be good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Re the family doc, so he learns to tell his receptionist to say "The doctor is not taking any new patients" and then he quietly makes the occasional exception and nobody is any the wiser. In your aside, you got the inside story. The discriminated population would never have a clue or get to first base if they launched a complaint of discrimination. If that keeps up they will start tracking who did take new patients - after all they did billing the governement, it isn't like the patient list really hidden from oversight. Making that information public would go a long way to stopping any nonsense from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 wonderful if they did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Do you really want someone to operate when they believe the outcome will not be good? But if the surgeon just cannot be bothered that is another matter. Of course, how can this possibly be monitored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Do you really want someone to operate when they believe the outcome will not be good? While I see what you mean, and agree with you on many aspects, we also need to remember that doctors can't predict the future. When my greatgrandmother had stomach cancer (her mother died from it in her 60s, before treatment existed), multiple surgeons flat out refused to operate on her because she was already in her 70s. Their official reason was that it was too risky for someone her age, and the unofficial reason was, of course, the life expectancy issue - right around mid-70s for Russian women. Nevertheless, the 4th surgeon that our family talked to agreed to operate, saying the risk of death on the operating table was at 10%. The operation went well, and he told my greatgrandmother that she probably had a good 2-3 years ahead of her. It's been 17 years and she is celebrating her 90th birthday in 3 weeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 What an inspirational and heartwarming story. It also says much for the relentless tenacity and determiniation of your family - may your gandmother live for many years to come in good health! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lactic Folly Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Yes, some people are more risk averse and others are more risk tolerant.. so it might take a few tries to find a healthcare provider who shares the same philosophy as the patient and family. For the situation initially presented, if the physician's motivations are not clearly evident, I find myself thinking more in terms of risk tolerance than ageism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 The patient and family certainly have their work cut out for themselves in many resepcts. I am aware of one case where a patient went to 3 surgeons, each of whom recommended surgery - -a disk fusion. The patient was uncomfortable with this approach, considering that surgery would only remove the symptom asnd make a reoccurrence more difficult to treat. Finally, the 4th surgeon enquired into the life style of the 30 something patient and then recommended the conservative approach with a physiatrist. Bottom line - no surgery, conservative treatment, patient regained total mobility for normal activity and no reoccurrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 The situation was one dealing with total hip and knee replacements, so I'm not really sure what other treatment options would be available for these patients that needed a new hip. In any case, the surgeon said that *luckily* he had not lost anyone yet so the surgery could have theoretically been done by the other surgeons but they chose not to take on the extra risks involved. I kind of felt bad for this surgeon who basically has a heart attack every time he walks into the operating room since he deals with mostly high risk cases because they are all shipped to him. I guess in a way he becomes a kind of expert dealing with these special cases but still....the whole situation doesn't really seem ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsuma Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 For the OP...I did not read this entire thread, so this may have already been mentionned. But below is a link for the CPSO policies (not sure what province you are from but certainly similar policies exists in each province) http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/policies/default.aspx?id=1778 Specifically you would want to look at "accepting new pts" "ending the physician-pt relationship" and "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code". These will help you understand when a physician may refuse to see a pt. Certainly in the case of a surgery, if the risk outweighs the benefits, in the eyes of the surgeon/anesthesiologist then it is reasonable to refuse the procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star1234 Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 That's a great link! Thank you! So I searched and this is what it states: Physicians who are able to accept new patients into their practice should use a first-come, first-served approach. The CMA Code of Ethics prohibits discrimination on similar grounds, including: age, gender, marital status, medical condition, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Decisions to accept or refuse new patients must be made in good faith. Clinical competence and scope of practice must not be used as a means of unfairly refusing patients with complex health care needs or patients who are perceived to be otherwise “difficult.” So I guess that answers my question.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 The CMA Code of Ethics prohibits discrimination on similar grounds, including: age, gender, marital status, medical condition, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Decisions to accept or refuse new patients must be made in good faith. Clinical competence and scope of practice must not be used as a means of unfairly refusing patients with complex health care needs or patients who are perceived to be otherwise “difficult.” But it would appear there is no effective way to monitor or enforce the above when a doc intent upon non-compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.