NATION

PASSWORD

Should patients be allowed to discriminate?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Should patients be able to discriminate?

Yes
34
39%
No
36
41%
Maybe
17
20%
 
Total votes : 87

User avatar
Patriarch
Envoy
 
Posts: 243
Founded: Sep 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Should patients be allowed to discriminate?

Postby Patriarch » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:24 pm

I've recently had the pleasant experience of spending a night in the local accident and emergency department strapped to a spinal board following a car crash. While I languished there waiting for the painfully slow NHS system to plod through my case I found some entertainment in eavesdroppinj on the other conversations going on in the department. In between the nurses gossiping about their colleagues in other departments or the docs making offensive comments about patients in their care I heard a number of patients making requests to see doctors and nurses of specific genders, ethnicities and sexualities. On all of these occasions the A+E team grudgingly relented and accommodated the requests.

This got me thinking (as best I could with the discomfort of the board and no chance of a drink of water) about the right or wrong of this. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say that these requests are nothing but [insert discriminatory factor]-ism but I think healthcare is one area I'm which this behaviour should be tolerated. To punish someones intolerance by denying them healthcare on this basis isn't acceptable to me. They're in a position of vulnerability and fear and every effort should be taken by the 'caring' professions to make the patient comfortable and relaxed while they recuperate,

Whatsp are your thoughts though? Should patients be able to discriminate in their choice of healthcare professionals?

User avatar
Herador
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6435
Founded: Mar 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Herador » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:26 pm

Patients should have the ability to decide who their health care provider is, if that decision is reached based on discrimination, that's their business.
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind"

The Milgram Experiment can tell you so much about what happens these days.

These are tough times to be a dreamer.

User avatar
Wind in the Willows
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6770
Founded: Apr 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wind in the Willows » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:29 pm

No, it doesn't matter what sexuality, ethnicity or gender the health provider is. Nobody should be picky when it comes to healthcare, they are lucky they are even being treated. In some countries, it would cost them.

User avatar
Utceforp
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10285
Founded: Apr 10, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Utceforp » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:30 pm

Normally I would be against this, but for purely pragmatic reasons, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to force something on a patient that they're obviously strongly against, depending on the situation. For non-emergencies, they should not be allowed to discriminate, but in emergencies where it is easy and feasible to get the doctor they wish to be treated by, I would let them discriminate. You don't want someone who's at risk of going into shock any unnecessary stress, for example.
Last edited by Utceforp on Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Signatures are so 2014.

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:No, it doesn't matter what sexuality, ethnicity or gender the health provider is. Nobody should be picky when it comes to healthcare, they are lucky they are even being treated. In some countries, it would cost them.

What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Wind in the Willows
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6770
Founded: Apr 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wind in the Willows » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:34 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Wind in the Willows wrote:No, it doesn't matter what sexuality, ethnicity or gender the health provider is. Nobody should be picky when it comes to healthcare, they are lucky they are even being treated. In some countries, it would cost them.

What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.


My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

User avatar
Utceforp
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10285
Founded: Apr 10, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Utceforp » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:35 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:
Geilinor wrote:What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.


My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

If it's an emergency, they should be allowed to be picky as long as getting the doctor that they want causes less problems than arguing with them.
Signatures are so 2014.

User avatar
Patriarch
Envoy
 
Posts: 243
Founded: Sep 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patriarch » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:36 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:
Geilinor wrote:What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.


My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.


If they are though how should it be handled?

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:36 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:
Geilinor wrote:What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.


My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

I don't like discrimination based on gender, sexuality, or ethnicity, but it could make the patient more likely to cooperate with treatment.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54475
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:38 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:
Geilinor wrote:What if it doesn't cost you anything? In a universal healthcare system, all providers should cost roughly the same.


My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.


Suppose that say, in the UK, they demand an English doctor because "Your accent is too thick."
The plague has been worse for women.
It's true that more men are dying from COVID, but that's not exactly a cause for celebration.
https://i.redd.it/oqy5p3p1ayv41.png

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:40 pm

Herador wrote:Patients should have the ability to decide who their health care provider is, if that decision is reached based on discrimination, that's their business.


Yup.

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:41 pm

Only if it is something reasonable.

When I was a toddler, in my last years of life of my grandfather, he had to stop smoking and my grandma stopped too out of empathy. The only problem is that her weight had a sudden surge and she could barely take a 100m walk without losing her breath.

She then refused to be treated by an endocrinologist recommended to treat her obesity caused by her quitting smoking who was obese himself and was smoking in his clinic while he attended her, with thousands of interruptions by the phone before. She then went out while they screamed "it's indeed here! it's here!" while she mumbled going home.

At coming home she started smoking again after a 6 months quit and lost all the excess 15kg (she's really short, it made a significant difference) in another 2.

Now I don't have anything against smokers as both my mom and my grandma are and I'm obese myself, but if the doctor seemed more presentable, maybe he would put his effort into treating the obesity whilst not having my grandmother going back to smoking.
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
Priory Academy USSR
Senator
 
Posts: 4833
Founded: May 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Priory Academy USSR » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:41 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Wind in the Willows wrote:
My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.


Suppose that say, in the UK, they demand an English doctor because "Your accent is too thick."


Then there should be an English speaking course for doctors and other medical professionals, so that doesn't impede on their ability to treat patients.
Call me what you will. Some people prefer 'Idiot'
Economic Compass
Left -7.00
Libertarian -2.67

User avatar
Fionnuala_Saoirse
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5242
Founded: Nov 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Fionnuala_Saoirse » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:45 pm

I can think of reasonable and unreasonable grounds for patients to discriminate against protected classes. If I deem it unreasonable i'd block their request in any dept I worked in. I'm not to blame if their poor decisions harm them and I have no obligation to enable bad behaviour.
Stupid Telegrams Received :

- "Isn't your name the name of the female Branch of the IRA" -- Benian Republic

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54475
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:46 pm

Priory Academy USSR wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Suppose that say, in the UK, they demand an English doctor because "Your accent is too thick."


Then there should be an English speaking course for doctors and other medical professionals, so that doesn't impede on their ability to treat patients.


They can speak English.
They just can't speak a British Accent.
The plague has been worse for women.
It's true that more men are dying from COVID, but that's not exactly a cause for celebration.
https://i.redd.it/oqy5p3p1ayv41.png

User avatar
Degenerate Heart of HetRio
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10600
Founded: Feb 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Degenerate Heart of HetRio » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:48 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Wind in the Willows wrote:My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Suppose that say, in the UK, they demand an English doctor because "Your accent is too thick."

But all Anglophone accents are too thick. The vowels are never clearly intuitive.

They can take the hard time of expecting the other person to explain things slowly and calmly to them.
Last edited by Degenerate Heart of HetRio on Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pro: Communism/anarchism, Indigenous rights, MOGAI stuff, bodily autonomy, disability rights, environmentalism
Meh: Animal rights, non-harmful religion/superstition, militant atheism, left-leaning reform of capitalism
Anti: Dyadic superstructure (sex-gender birth designation and hierarchy), positivism, conservatism, imperialism, Zionism, Orientalism, fascism, religious right, bending to reactionary concerns before freedom/common concern, fraudulent beliefs and ideologies

Formerly "Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro".

Compass: -10.00, -9.13
S-E Ideology: Demc. Socialist (92% ditto/Marxist, 75% Anarchist/Social democrat, 0% etc)
S-E school of thought: Communist (100% ditto, 96% Post-Keynesian)

Though this says I'm a social democrat, I'm largely a left communist.

User avatar
Wind in the Willows
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6770
Founded: Apr 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wind in the Willows » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:05 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Wind in the Willows wrote:
My point is that they should not be picky about who their doctor or nurses are, especially when it comes to things like their gender, sexuality or ethnicity.


Suppose that say, in the UK, they demand an English doctor because "Your accent is too thick."


Every foreigner wanting to become a doctor should have to sit a course on how to talk English properly, so it doesn't impede their ability to treat patients.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60836
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Liriena » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:15 pm

I'm actually kinda torn on this.

On the one hand, it's pretty much been a given, even in universal health care systems, that patients can choose whether they are to be treated or not, and that this extends to who they are to be treated by.

On the other hand, refusing to have a certain medical professional treat you because of that professional's gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation would be beyond stupid.

Should patients be allowed to discriminate? I would say yes, within reason.

Should a patient choose to discriminate professionals, and should said patient's recovery suffer for it, however, said patient should lose the right to claim any sort of responsibility on the part of the discriminated professional.
Last edited by Liriena on Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Orham
Minister
 
Posts: 2286
Founded: Feb 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Orham » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:35 pm

Patriarch wrote:I think healthcare is one area I'm which this behaviour should be tolerated. To punish someones intolerance by denying them healthcare on this basis isn't acceptable to me. They're in a position of vulnerability and fear and every effort should be taken by the 'caring' professions to make the patient comfortable and relaxed while they recuperate,

Whatsp are your thoughts though? Should patients be able to discriminate in their choice of healthcare professionals?


I think you've more or less got the right of it. But the degree to which I think an institution or organization ought to accommodate patients' requests is subjective. For instance, if a racist emergency patient insists that he won't be seen by a black nurse, tough shit. If a woman wants to be seen by a female gynecologist, however, that's perfectly reasonable and the institution should accommodate.
I'm female, so please remember to say "she" or "her" when referring to me.

Medical student, aspiring to be a USN sailor. Pass the scalpel, and hooyah!

If I go too far, tell me in a TG and we can talk about it. Really, I care about that.

User avatar
-Caliente
Attaché
 
Posts: 69
Founded: Jun 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby -Caliente » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:48 pm

Wind in the Willows wrote:No, it doesn't matter what sexuality, ethnicity or gender the health provider is. Nobody should be picky when it comes to healthcare, they are lucky they are even being treated. In some countries, it would cost them.

If I don't want a black man to treat me, I should be able to pick a different doctor. It's not about luck, or privilege-- it's about personal preference. Nobody should just feel lucky just being treated because doctor's are WRONG more often than not, when diagnosing illnesses and what not. Getting a second opinion is important and if you value an Asian doctor's advice over an Indian doctor's, there shouldn't be an issue.
“But fix thine eyes below; for draweth near
The river of blood, within which boiling is
Whoe'er by violence doth injure others.
O blind cupidity, O wrath insane,
That spurs us onward so in our short life,
And in the eternal then so badly steeps us!”

— Dante Alighieri, The Inferno

User avatar
Jacobios
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Apr 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jacobios » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:49 pm

Utceforp wrote:For non-emergencies, they should not be allowed to discriminate, but in emergencies where it is easy and feasible to get the doctor they wish to be treated by, I would let them discriminate. You don't want someone who's at risk of going into shock any unnecessary stress, for example.

In an emergency I don't think you would be picky about who treats you, just that you want to get better as quick as possible.
Jacob Jones
Prime Minister of Jacobios

User avatar
Utceforp
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10285
Founded: Apr 10, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Utceforp » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Jacobios wrote:
Utceforp wrote:For non-emergencies, they should not be allowed to discriminate, but in emergencies where it is easy and feasible to get the doctor they wish to be treated by, I would let them discriminate. You don't want someone who's at risk of going into shock any unnecessary stress, for example.

In an emergency I don't think you would be picky about who treats you, just that you want to get better as quick as possible.

That's a good point. But in the unlikely scenario that the man having a heart attack wants to have a white doctor, it might be a good idea to focus more on treating him than arguing with him.
Signatures are so 2014.

User avatar
Fionnuala_Saoirse
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5242
Founded: Nov 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Fionnuala_Saoirse » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:54 pm

Utceforp wrote:
Jacobios wrote:In an emergency I don't think you would be picky about who treats you, just that you want to get better as quick as possible.

That's a good point. But in the unlikely scenario that the man having a heart attack wants to have a white doctor, it might be a good idea to focus more on treating him than arguing with him.


Assuming he has capacity, he can fuck off. Its up to him whether he wants to risk morbidity and mortality to continue his bigotry. It's not up to me to enable it.
Stupid Telegrams Received :

- "Isn't your name the name of the female Branch of the IRA" -- Benian Republic

User avatar
Jacobios
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Apr 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Jacobios » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:59 pm

Utceforp wrote:
Jacobios wrote:In an emergency I don't think you would be picky about who treats you, just that you want to get better as quick as possible.

That's a good point. But in the unlikely scenario that the man having a heart attack wants to have a white doctor, it might be a good idea to focus more on treating him than arguing with him.

Most British people couldn't give a toss who is treating them, they should be thankful that their treatment is 'free'. When a service is already stretched people cannot afford to be picking and choosing.
Jacob Jones
Prime Minister of Jacobios

User avatar
Orham
Minister
 
Posts: 2286
Founded: Feb 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Orham » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:03 pm

-Caliente wrote:If I don't want a black man to treat me, I should be able to pick a different doctor. It's not about luck, or privilege-- it's about personal preference.


As I said before: tough shit. There's no good reason to accommodate this.

Nobody should just feel lucky just being treated because doctor's are WRONG more often than not, when diagnosing illnesses and what not.


What is this madness? Diagnosis is a process of elimination by its very nature. If you expect a doctor to get the correct diagnosis on the first shot and to never need a second opinion, you're just being unreasonable.

Getting a second opinion is important and if you value an Asian doctor's advice over an Indian doctor's, there shouldn't be an issue.


...no, there's definitely an issue. You're insisting that a medical institution be compelled to make unreasonable accommodations for racist patients.
I'm female, so please remember to say "she" or "her" when referring to me.

Medical student, aspiring to be a USN sailor. Pass the scalpel, and hooyah!

If I go too far, tell me in a TG and we can talk about it. Really, I care about that.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ansarre, Duvniask, Google Adsense [Bot], Jerzylvania, Kanadorika, Kowani, Minskiev, Navich, Nilokeras, Novus America, Rathalas, Rusozak, The Belacian States, The Greater Ohio Valley, The Rich Port, Thermodolia, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads