Should hospitals be allowed to reject a patient that has ebola

Asked by: DAFROBRO
  • Rejecting Ebola Patients

    Yes they should reject Ebola patients because although it is the hospital's responsibility to take care of the public-there is no cure for Ebola so what can they do? What good would it do for them to allow Ebola patients in the hospital with no cure? They are subjecting themselves to Ebola, which is synonymous to death right now and would you want to die? No. So therefore they should be able to reject Ebola patients because those doctors and nurses have families, wives, husbands, little babies and cousins and mothers and fathers and why should they die? It's unethical to make anyone come into contact with an incurable disease that's so vicious.

  • They should be allowed to reject, but with just reasons

    Not all hospitals are equipped with handling Ebola patients. In fact, many are not at this time. Therefore, I feel hospitals should be allowed to reject Ebola patients under the following conditions:

    First off, the reason for rejection needs to be a just one. An example would be that the hospital does not have the capacity to treat the patient, and by attempting to will put too much risk on the hospital staff and other patients in order to safely allow the patient.

    Secondly, they must send the patient to a hospital that does treat Ebola patients, or at the very least suggest hospitals. Rejecting them and not telling them where they can go is a rather impolite and careless thing to do on a hospital end.

    Third, they must be willing to /consider/ preparing the facility to better equip Ebola patients. This does not mean they have to. But they should at least take the time to try. If in the end they decide it's not worth it, then they should make it known they are not equipped to handle the Ebola outbreak so that the public knows and so the hospital can stay safer.

  • Relocation is a form of rejection

    Ebola his very risky for hospitals. It's a virus that already is deadly to patients that were healthy when they got it. In hospitals, were many people with a wide range of problems gather, this is very dangerous.

    That's why hospitals have or have not facilities to deal with epidemics and dangerous contagious viruses. If they have, they have no right to reject a patients. If they don't they would put everyone in the hospital at risk by accepting them.

    However, not accepting an ebola patient doesn't mean they are told to just go and find another hospital or linger in the streets till they die. It means, someone calls the next epidemic center and gets an ambulance or a helicopter.

    A single hospital can reject an ebola patient the health care system cannot reject to take care of the ebola patient.

    Posted by: Eav
  • No Single Type of Hospital

    Everyone assumes that all hospitals are the same and that all hospitals have the medication available to treat the same diseases. But the truth is, there are four different major types of hospitals. There are acute care community hospitals, specialty hospitals, teaching hospitals, and tertiary hospitals (taken from In certain hospitals, like teaching hospitals, people are still learning how to work as doctors and nurses and are therefore not qualified to accept patients with diseases like ebola. This is because these people don't know HOW to deal with this sort of problem and they're still learning how to treat other illnesses. Their treatment for it could only make the condition more severe. Thus, hospitals should be allowed to reject a patient that has ebola not just for the sake of the hospital's community but also for the sake of patient themselves.

  • Rejecting Ebola Patients

    No they shouldnt be able to because the ebola patients will die if not taken care of properly. That isnt fair to the patient or the patient's family. No they shouldnt be able to because the ebola patients will die if not taken care of properly. That isnt fair to the patient or the patient's family.

  • That's a silly thing

    Because this is their obligation to help people no matter what ill. The important things here are they have complete equipment to help patient that has ebola, they are professional and are a human. Because just a human has heart. And remember, this is human right to get a good treatment from the hospital. At least, hospital accept them and do the best. Don't too much think about success or fail. Just think to do something good because we don't want feel regret in end.

  • That would be ridiculous.

    The whole point of a hospital is to help people in medical need. If a hospital were to reject a patient because he had Ebola, they would be going against what they were created for. It doesn't matter how bad the disease is, as long as there is a quarantine zone (which a hospital should have).

  • Rejecting Ebola victims would result in the spreading of Ebola.

    They should not be able to reject Ebola patients because is it a hospitals duty to care for all citizens, no matter what the illness. Also, sending patients home would only result in more people acquiring the sickness - turning Ebola into a pandemic and resulting in numerous deaths. A hospital quarantine is required for a safe recovery for all involved.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GoOrDin says2014-10-29T21:41:46.167
To risky. Need staff and treatment. NO one should be forced to risk there lives to work at hospital in the event a patient contracted Ebola. Hospitals are not set up to handle this, and have no obligation towards patients whom they have no treatment or containment facilities for.