|
And they practise as independent professionals, unless they are employed by another professional or a corporation of some sort.
Their conduct is regulated, generally, by the authority in charge of their self-governing profession, whose rules and actions are governed by legislation.
They are subject to the general laws of the jurisdiction, such as the ones I mentioned: anti-discrimination legislation. That legislation, for example, sets out the grounds on which services may not be denied in the private sector: usually, race, religion, sex, and other things like national origin, marital status and sexual orientation, depending on the jurisdiction.
A physician who terminates a physician-patient relationship based on the patient's refusal to disclose information that the physician considers relevant to their professional care of the patient is not violating professional ethics (as defined by the authority in charge of the self-governing medical profession and then set out in legislation or regulations) as long as no overriding legislation, such as anti-discrimination legislation, is violated.
A physician who required that any patient disclose sexual activity would not be violating ethics, unless they did so in a discriminatory manner such as the one described here (applying the condition as a way of discriminating against (unmarried) women, or against gay men, for example). These things aren't always simple. Demanding that a gay man who was not out disclose sexual activity could be perceived as discriminating against gay men, since special sensitivity to some gay men might be needed and failing to exercise it could amount to discriminating.
Pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives are plainly discriminating against women and on the ground of religious belief, since they claim their own religious belief as the justification for their refusal. (A pharmacist may, however, refuse to fill prescriptions for various other reasons based on their professional judgment.)
But firearms ownership, and political views about anything at all, have nothing to do with discrimination. There are no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of political opinion, and I doubt that many people think there should be. There are certainly no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of ownership of random objects not related to, say, religion.
Firearms ownership by parents is relevant to children's health -- in the professional opinion of many physicians and in the opinion of associations of physicians and in the opinion of academics in various fields of medicine.
Declining service based on refusal to discuss that subject is NOT "to decline service based on non-professionally-related grounds".
And the fact remains that a physician does not have to have "professionally-related grounds" for declining service. They have ethical obligations not to abandon a patient with whom they have a relationship, but they are not indentured servants of any patient. They may select and de-select patients at will, as long as they do not break any laws by doing so and as long as they meet the requirements for doing so without leaving the patient without necessary medical care.
This doctor gave the patient 30 days to arrange other care. Had the patient been genuinely unable to do so, he would likely have had a continuing obligation to provide care until she did.
The characterization of the incident provided by the patient strikes me as a little, hm, bare. It's possible that the doctor said "do you have firearms in your home?", she said "I prefer not to discuss that", he said "please arrange payment on the way out". I doubt that's quite how it went. If she said no more than that, and he said nothing to explain his question and the reasons why he needed an answer in order to continue the relationship, she could have a small point.
He, of course, is prohibited from refuting her version of events by the rule of doctor-patient confidentiality. I'd find her more credible if I knew she had expressly waived that privilege so that he could give his own account of the events.
"IOW, if you want the job, you have to do the job" -- but not free of charge, not when you are on vacation, not for someone who is rude to your staff, and not for someone who is non-compliant with any aspect of the care that, in your professional opinion, is appropriate.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
