Should patients be allowed to discriminate?

[Asigna]

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.

I was about to post the same idea. Kudos to you sir.

[Herador]

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.

...because?

Because being comfortable is a key part of recovery, and if someone is uncomfortable being operated on or treated by a black doctor or a female doctor, and there is a doctor of their preference available, why the hell not?

[AiliailiA]

My regular doctor only works part time at the GP group practice nearest me. So if I think it's urgent I'll take an appointment with one of the other doctors. Each time the receptionist tells the name of the doctor first available and asks if I'm OK with them. I always say Yes, because I'm not a racist or a sexist, or a homophobe/heterophobe, and actually I like having a diversity of medical opinion about my problems. Anyway, the receptionist always gives the doctor's first and second name, which I think is a polite way of checking that I'm OK with a male or female doctor.

Even if I was a sexist or a racist, I like to think I'd have the common decency to politely decline that doctor without saying why. If I wasn't confronted about their gender or race, I'd have the common sense not to make a scene.

Yes, it might be different in a Casualty department. Personally I would feel like a real asshole to decline the doctor (or nurse) assigned to me, and waste staff time, after sitting in the waiting room watching other people suffering. Or actually dying for that matter: if it's a busy time (saturday night for instance) and you have to wait two hours, chances are at least one person died back there in the operating theatre. As the very jolly cart jockey told me the last time I had a major operation: "you should have got appendicitis on a Tuesday morning".

In the more common GP setting though, I would say doctors are better protected in their workplace from the insult of discrimination by patients if there's some basic screening at the receptionist level. Let the racists and homophobes make their choice without it being a big issue. And without wasting the doctor's time trying to diagnose and treat a patient who has some emotional block against them.

It's an interesting topic for me. As a general rule I want to stamp out racism, sexism and homophobia (or for that matter heterophobia), so I'm strongly in support of other "trades" being regulated against such discimination. If you offer drinks or food to the general public, as a business or even as a charity, you should not turn anyone away because of their race, sex, or supposed sexuality. These mundane things bring people together to discover their common humanity, and the attempt to do social engineering through business should be encouraged when it brings diverse people together. And strongly discouraged when it attempts to keep them apart.

But I want to make an exception for the patient in their choice of doctor. It seems to me too close and personal, and the 'bodily sovereignty' argument looms large: the right to refuse treatment is stronger than the right to refuse to enter into some other "trade".

By the way, I think my usual doctor is gay. But I will never know because I would never ask. It's none of my business!

[Scomagia]

While I don't like the idea of patients discriminating against their healthcare providers based on race, I do find it acceptable to choose one's provider based on sex. I, for instance, do not want a male to take care of me medically. It's not because I don't find them capable, it's because I was sexually assaulted as a child and have issues with male/male physical contact. Seeing my body, drawing blood, or anything else physically intimate or uncomfortable must be done by a female.


When it comes to my mental health, however, I have no problem with males providing my treatment. Make of that what you will.

[Patriqvinia]

Of course... though I imagine in NHS countries this is probably a bit trickier as everyone's pilfered cash being dumped into a pool tends to create an "at least you got that much" mentality and the inevitable "but what about muh X" when there are complaints regarding that.

[Orham]

It's one thing if a patient needs help and doesn't want the *racial epithet* touching him versus a doctor refusing to help the homosexual (a topic of the US these days).

As long as the hospital has procedures in place to protect themselves from the patients stupidity; is it really an issue?

The procedure in most hospitals is that the staff protect themselves from the patients stupidity by refusing to accommodate the bigoted requests. Staff have a right to work in an environment in which they are not discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, etc fortunately.

BING-BONG!

We have a winner, get this person a stuffed bear!

[AiliailiA]

Of course... though I imagine in NHS countries this is probably a bit trickier as everyone's pilfered cash being dumped into a pool tends to create an "at least you got that much" mentality and the inevitable "but what about muh X" when there are complaints regarding that.

This "pilfering cash" system seems to produce better health outcomes for less cash, so maybe it's not such a bad idea.

[AiliailiA]

The procedure in most hospitals is that the staff protect themselves from the patients stupidity by refusing to accommodate the bigoted requests. Staff have a right to work in an environment in which they are not discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, etc fortunately.

BING-BONG!

We have a winner, get this person a stuffed bear!

FS can stuff their own bear thankyou very much.

I hold the rights of patients above the rights of healthcare providers. Just as I hold the rights of consumers in any other trading relationship above the rights of vendors, but actually more so because on the provider's side it is a right to "work in an environment which is not x" whereas, on the patient's side, it is a right choose something that may save their life or may literally kill them.

The patient's choice is about bodily sovereignty. This isn't about who can or cannot work on their building site, or who can or cannot serve them food. It's about who works on their body ... on which their life and continued personhoood depends.

It should be the exception to the rule "you cannot discriminate in business" because medicine isn't just business.

[Quintium]

It's surprising that I answered no and most people here answered yes.

[Orham]

FS can stuff their own bear thankyou very much.

I don't know whether to laugh or not.

I hold the rights of patients above the rights of healthcare providers. Just as I hold the rights of consumers in any other trading relationship above the rights of vendors, but actually more so because on the provider's side it is a right to "work in an environment which is not x" whereas, on the patient's side, it is a right choose something that may save their life or may literally kill them.

The patient's choice is about bodily sovereignty. This isn't about who can or cannot work on their building site, or who can or cannot serve them food. It's about who works on their body ... on which their life and continued personhoood depends.

It should be the exception to the rule "you cannot discriminate in business" because medicine isn't just business.

I'm not saying that a patient shouldn't be able to refuse to receive care from an institution's staff based on anything more substantive than the number of green candies in the guest lobby's dish. I'm just saying that if patients want to discriminate based on ludicrous criteria such as the race/ethnicity of a provider I feel it's justified for the institution to respond by pointing them in the direction of another hospital and saying "If you want care here, this is who provides it here. If you can't deal with that, the next clinic is down the block about fifty minutes. Decide."

There's no conflict with the institution of bodily sovereignty under such circumstances, is there?

[AiliailiA]

It's surprising that I answered no and most people here answered yes.

I'm inclined to Yes, but I haven't voted yet. Difficult issue for me, I may yet change my mind.

[Orham]

Of course... though I imagine in NHS countries this is probably a bit trickier as everyone's pilfered cash being dumped into a pool tends to create an "at least you got that much" mentality and the inevitable "but what about muh X" when there are complaints regarding that.

This "pilfering cash" system seems to produce better health outcomes for less cash, so maybe it's not such a bad idea.

It is the best way to do things, really. Better results, lower cost per capita, it's insane to suggest anything else. Pilfer away.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Patients should be able to discriminate for non-necessary medical procedures, I suppose.

[Lamaredia]

Depends on the situation. For example, if a woman goes to a gynecologist and wants to see a female doctor (due to obvious reasons) then I would say yes. The same goes for if a male rather wants a male doctor too of course. However, if you say "I don't want a black/gay/white/hispanic/straight etc. doctor" then I don't see any reason for you not to have any of them.

[Great Nepal]

Sure, assuming said patient is capable of giving informed consent.
If no practitioner fitting patient's request is available, and patient doesn't change their mind they will die and life will go on as before, with one less bigot around. Everyone wins, just make sure they sign a indemnification form so lawsuit can't be initiated against the hospital.

[Novo Portugal]

No, if they go to the hospital they should be treated by a good doctor, nurse whatever... But no picking
"Uh, I don't want blacks!" "Nor a Pakistani doctor!"
That's just retard... if you want to pick, choose a private clinic that only hires the "perfect ethnicity" that you seek. But not on a Public Hospitals and clinics.

[Great Nepal]

No, if they go to the hospital they should be treated by a good doctor, nurse whatever... But no picking
"Uh, I don't want blacks!" "Nor a Pakistani doctor!"
That's just retard... if you want to pick, choose a private clinic that only hires the "perfect ethnicity" that you seek. But not on a Public Hospitals and clinics.

People have right to be retarded.

[Novo Portugal]

No, if they go to the hospital they should be treated by a good doctor, nurse whatever... But no picking
"Uh, I don't want blacks!" "Nor a Pakistani doctor!"
That's just retard... if you want to pick, choose a private clinic that only hires the "perfect ethnicity" that you seek. But not on a Public Hospitals and clinics.

People have right to be retarded.

Not with public organizations that are payed by the tax payer and that everyone is allowed to use, no right to be retarded to professionals just because they are white or black, Chinese or German...
As you don't pick the professors you get, you should not pick what doctor you have if you are entering the ER.

[Herador]

People have right to be retarded.

Not with public organizations that are payed by the tax payer and that everyone is allowed to use, no right to be retarded to professionals just because they are white or black, Chinese or German...
As you don't pick the professors you get, you should not pick what doctor you have if you are entering the ER.

Actually, you do, at least in the US, there's even a website to help you pick your professor down to certain teaching characteristics and even how attractive they are.

[Novo Portugal]

Not with public organizations that are payed by the tax payer and that everyone is allowed to use, no right to be retarded to professionals just because they are white or black, Chinese or German...
As you don't pick the professors you get, you should not pick what doctor you have if you are entering the ER.

Actually, you do, at least in the US, there's even a website to help you pick your professor down to certain teaching characteristics and even how attractive they are.

That's just weird...

[Great Nepal]

People have right to be retarded.

Not with public organizations that are payed by the tax payer and that everyone is allowed to use, no right to be retarded to professionals just because they are white or black, Chinese or German...
As you don't pick the professors you get, you should not pick what doctor you have if you are entering the ER.

You can pick the professors you get, you do that by not turning up to lectures given by some professors. You will probably fail your class, but that is just a consequence of being retarded.
Public organisations (such as hospitals or universities) should not go out of their way to accommodate for those people (ie. they shouldn't spend a penny more to get a practitioner with <insert characteristics>) but that is not to say they should forcibly treat the patient against their will. Make patient aware that no practitioner with characteristics they want is available, if the patient still chooses to not be treated get them a pen and indemnification agreement, go and treat someone who actually wants the treatment.

[AiliailiA]

FS can stuff their own bear thankyou very much.

I don't know whether to laugh or not.

I hold the rights of patients above the rights of healthcare providers. Just as I hold the rights of consumers in any other trading relationship above the rights of vendors, but actually more so because on the provider's side it is a right to "work in an environment which is not x" whereas, on the patient's side, it is a right choose something that may save their life or may literally kill them.

The patient's choice is about bodily sovereignty. This isn't about who can or cannot work on their building site, or who can or cannot serve them food. It's about who works on their body ... on which their life and continued personhoood depends.

It should be the exception to the rule "you cannot discriminate in business" because medicine isn't just business.

I'm not saying that a patient shouldn't be able to refuse to receive care from an institution's staff based on anything more substantive than the number of green candies in the guest lobby's dish. I'm just saying that if patients want to discriminate based on ludicrous criteria such as the race/ethnicity of a provider I feel it's justified for the institution to respond by pointing them in the direction of another hospital and saying "If you want care here, this is who provides it here. If you can't deal with that, the next clinic is down the block about fifty minutes. Decide."

That is frankly worse than a doctor refusing to treat a patient. It would take a few minutes to find some other doctor in the same hospital (though that is bad, as I said before) but at least in the meantime the patient is in a hospital, and if they develop acute symptoms and need urgent treatment it's there for them. If they're still able to give or withhold consent, they will buck up and accept the medical council of Dr. Wickramasingh, or lie there dying while they wait for Dr White to finish some other urgent medical appointment.

Is that harsh punishment for being a racist? Yes, but harsh decisions need to be made in Emergency. YOUR alternative — "go to some other hospital" — is just as harsh, and negligent of the patient's health and life to boot.

Best case scenario really is that the racist (or sexist, or whatever) patient passes out, and the doctors decide what is best for them. Dr Wickramasingh saves the racist's life, and the racist stops being so racist when they realize they owe their life to a "Paki".

There's no conflict with the institution of bodily sovereignty under such circumstances, is there?

Actually I think yes. "Go to some other hospital" infringes on the rights of the patient which — while not always guaranteed by law outside the hospital — doctors specifically swore to protect when they entered their professional guild.

[Novo Portugal]

Not with public organizations that are payed by the tax payer and that everyone is allowed to use, no right to be retarded to professionals just because they are white or black, Chinese or German...
As you don't pick the professors you get, you should not pick what doctor you have if you are entering the ER.

You can pick the professors you get, you do that by not turning up to lectures given by some professors. You will probably fail your class, but that is just a consequence of being retarded.
Public organisations (such as hospitals or universities) should not go out of their way to accommodate for those people (ie. they shouldn't spend a penny more to get a practitioner with <insert characteristics>) but that is not to say they should forcibly treat the patient against their will. Make patient aware that no practitioner with characteristics they want is available, if the patient still chooses to not be treated get them a pen and indemnification agreement, go and treat someone who actually wants the treatment.

Then it is basically:
Retarded is dying
Retarded wants a <insert characteristics> doctor
Retarded is warned that there is no <insert characteristics> doctor in the Hospital
Retarded stops being retarded and gets any doctor or Retarded stops being Retarded, forever.

[AiliailiA]

Actually, you do, at least in the US, there's even a website to help you pick your professor down to certain teaching characteristics and even how attractive they are.

That's just weird...

hotprofs.com is free to join. If you want more, for $20 a month you can dateyourprof.com

[Great Nepal]

Then it is basically:
Retarded is dying
Retarded wants a <insert characteristics> doctor
Retarded is warned that there is no <insert characteristics> doctor in the Hospital
Retarded stops being retarded and gets any doctor or Retarded stops being Retarded, forever.

Exactly, either way there is one less bigot around town. Everyone wins.

Best case scenario really is that the racist (or sexist, or whatever) patient passes out, and the doctors decide what is best for them. Dr Wickramasingh saves the racist's life, and the racist stops being so racist when they realize they owe their life to a "Paki".

Not really relevant but wouldn't patient's initial refusal to be treated by Dr Wickramasingh prevent him from treating the patient even after s/he passed out; the initial refusal acting as kind of an advance directive?