If you see a patient is running out early always wanting to schedule their appointment early it may because they are misusing their prescription, selling it, or partying with it. The doctors don't ever know 100% if they should deny treatment. Also if he/she feels threatened they should be allowed to tell them to find a new doc.
Physicians should only treat patients who deserve to be treated. Rude, spoiled brats who don't know their manners should be refused service. Why would a doctor want to care for a patient who pusses him off. Oath? Don't make me laugh! If a doctor refuse to treat you you can always go somewhere else. I bet you'll eventually find a physician willing to give you treatment even if you're the worst human being alive. Why? Because in general doctors are more humane even though the general public tries to satanise them. So next time a doctor refuses to treat you, think of it as a sort of mutual agreement thing. No one ows you nothing! And if you're so obnoxious that you cannot find a doctor to treat you there is also alternative medecine. IN CONCLUSION DOCTORS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE SERVICE TO PATIENTS THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO TREAT.
Doctors and hospitals should. This is because if the patient is noncompliant and has recent cases of noncompliance the doctor can refuse the patient. Especially in the case of transplants. Because as we all know the items such as hearts are extremely limited, and everyone cant be accepted just because.
Bro yes and yes and yes just yes and more yeses to get rid of this shitty more words needed and yes and 69 times more yeses and yes and yes and 9+10=21 yes andnsdsd
ff j j j j j j j j cba anymore and yes
Just like all businesses, hospitals and doctors should not be forced to provide service for any person they do not wish to serve. Restaurants and other businesses often have signs stating they can refuse business to anyone and I believe the same principle should be applied to the medical field. This is especially important if someone is trying to force the doctor to perform a task that he/she does not agree with, and has already made a commitment to not perform said task. If a doctor does not agree with doing something, they should still send the patient to someone who is willing to do the task themselves after they have explained other possible solutions.
If the patient is not helping themselves then what is the point in using up all of the expensive on them when there is other patients who are actually trying to quit there habits and who want to help themselves. I just do not see the point in basically wasting money and time on them if they do not care whether or not they get the treatment either.
I believe doctors should be allowed to refuse treatment, in fact, I was pretty sure they already could. Doctors are individuals, they are not going to do well with every random patient that walks through the door. I think it is good for doctors to turn away patients they don't feel like they can help.
In this world of folks wanting to have what they want...And if they don't get what they feel they're entitled to , they go after the hospital/doctor/group, etc.. Chasing the dollar to help give them "compensation".... I start off sounding negative, but I will continue for my reasoning....
Not everybody who comes to the hospital for treatment necessarily likes what they may hear. There are folks that want to just get through this setback so they can get back to their "normal life" (whatever defines normal) There are others that may need a "pharmaceutical fix"... Not necessarily wanting to change their lifestyle... Just changing the story as to why the "fix" needs to happen.
A proper doctor goes into doctoring cuz they genuinely want to help people. They care for their patients. Sometimes patients (as all people) want what they want... Regardless if that lines up with the "version of healthy that the doctor subscribes to". Not everybody, but some. We don't all fit in the same category as a way to mechanize the life we live to completely remove humanity from the equation.
Doctoring has gotten very specialized. There are so many aspects of our human body, that it's not like it was on the Walton's or Little house on the prairie.... If a doctor doesn't feel comfortable and or competent??.... Maybe we shouldn't force the issue. If the doctor can refer the patient to someone better suited to help said patient... The doctor isn't necessarily "uncaring". The doctor is still doing what's best for the patient.
We don't tick off the chef before we get our meal. We don't make our mechanic mad before handing him (or her) the keys. We don't chew out our spouse and take them out to a romantic getaway.... If you are turned down for a job, do you FORCE them to hire you? Knowing that there was something that they didn't see "working out" on their end.... Why force an issue?
We have gotten to the point where doctors are generalized to... We've put them on such a pedestal. If you trust their skills to just be a doctor.... As if they can do all things. Shouldn't we also trust their abililty to know what they can do and what they can't?
I believe that for the person who is really trying to take the appropriate actions, no respecting doctor would just refuse to take care of a patient.
I see too many of the negative posts talking about "religion" etc for reasons to say NO, and to force doctors to do what they are supposed to do and just "be professional" and to leave their "religion and morals" at the door.
I don't see that as a viable reason to "refuse" care to another potential "recruit" for your particular "religion". Wouldn't the said doctor want to promote their "belief" by "showing how wonderful their religion is"?
Everyone in our country has a right of religious freedom, and whether the doctors believe it religiously wrong or not they have the same right to refuse treatment even if it wasn't religious. People think only people with different religious beliefs get the right, when they're no better than an unbeliever. Doctors know about how terrible shots and medications are for you if get take/get them every year. Your body will start depending on shots/meds. Then your immune system will grow weak and you wont be able to keep down any food or drink. Shots/medication may help now but in the end they'll kill someone!
As a physician, they should have a right to say no if they feel uncomfortable treating a patient that affects their morale code. I should not be forced to treat, for example, a child molester. The patient can find themselves a new doctor. At that point, my judgement is clouded, and it affects me emotionally, so it is would be in the patient's best interest (and mine) to find themselves a new physician. Doctors are humans too, and society tends to forget that.
Doctors must be professionals. They cannot let their morals get in the way of proper treatment. The only thing that should matter when refusing or granting treatment is the harm or help it will give to the patient. This means that a doctor should not be able to refuse treatments based on religion or political concerns.
Doctors have created a legal environment where patients cannot access medical treatments without going through doctors. Therefore when doctors refuse service to patients it is not comparable to a restaurant refusing service. (Nor is it "involuntary servitude," as the doctors claimed to the Supreme Court.) It is comparable instead to a government service, such as social security, police or the water department, which the public must use and cannot bypass.
What doctors have created -- primarily for their own self-interest -- is a "bandit on the road to market" situation. Health care patients cannot access medical science without going through the doctor-bandits, but the bandits can refuse them.
For the most part, doctors do not even invent, manufacture or distribute medical treatment. They control it simply because they have lobbied long and hard to control patients' access to medical science, and they have lobbied all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to deny any patient. This is immoral, and though I'm not a lawyer, I suspect it violates some important legal principle.
I have read doctor's forums on the internet and here are the most common reasons doctors gave for denying treatment: Patients not worth enough money to doctor; patients rescheduling or missing appointments ("three strikes and they're out"); doctor doesn't like patients; patients think they're "smarter" than doctor. I kid you not.
But even if a patient misused their treatment, the patient should not be denied needed treatment. It's the patient's responsibility to use the medication/treatment in a safe way. Doctors should not be liable if a patient misuses a medication or treatment, but if patients still need the medication or treatment, doctors should be required to continue providing it.
Unfortunately, a doctor doesn't have to justify their denial of treatment to anyone except perhaps an occasional nuisance-suit lawyer. Denial can be done on a whim, a suspicion or a bogus excuse. There is no due process for patients. Nor is there much regulation of doctors. We have federal quality control regulation for food, automobiles, drugs, manufactured homes, environmental issues and many other things. But not for doctors. They can pretty much do whatever they want.
The psychology field says clinical narcissists are very over-represented in the doctor profession. Narcissists are mentally disturbed and tend to be self-serving, controlling, immoral and cold-hearted. I don't want someone like that playing god in my or anyone else's lives, and I want them subject to federal regulations.
Just to show how serious a problem is this? I have read several studies like this one (http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/books/NBK225187/), which concludes 98,000 Americans die every year from improper health care in hospitals. That does not include deaths outside of hospitals, nor deaths from denied health care. Nor all the needless suffering from improper or denied health care. Add it all up and doctors are probably a bigger threat to Americans than accidents, violence or many diseases. They need to be regulated.
Doctors have to much freedom , everyone deserves to be treated , with professionalism and respect. But some doctors need to learn bedside manners, my doc retired ,i have been refused by two doctors because i need narcotics , for severe pain , is that even humane,disabled in pain, why ? A dog in pain would be given help before a human , because doctors have to much freedom
When refusing treatment to patients are making them suffer hurt. Many doctors jump to the "it's against my religion" card without first finding out the details of the matter. A patient should not be judged by his or her actions and should be treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation, religion, sex, or gender. Doctors need to step up and start doing their job which is take care of their patients and stop turning them away
Doctors SHOULD be in the practice of medicine to help people. If they were only worried about making enough to afford a $500,000 home, the yacht, the Mercedes, the BMW, and the kids private schooling...He got into the wrong profession. Sad when health care is more about the almighty dollar than actually taking care of people.
If there is someone who is a danger to themselves demanding a treatment that would cause themselves our others harm, then a doctor should be able to refuse. But as far as a treatment they got into practice to deliver - they should not be able to refuse treatment. If there are moral obligations, then they should not be in the profession in the first place.
A doctor should be trained and educated enough to be able to separate his own personal agenda from the welfare of their patient during treatment. If the doctors knows what procedure needs to be administered medically, then he needs to fully commit himself to bettering the current medical state of his patient.