Should patients be allowed to discriminate?

[Osterlais]

That's an exception, because of reasons that one can explain. One cannot logically explain why they can't have a black or Asian doctor, on the other hand.

What if it is a simple matter of preference? or what if the patient is clearly not being logical? Besides, the Doctors and nurses are the ones who have to be logical. I mean if there is a patient who is brought into a hospital and screams bloody murder whenever a black person is around, the only way to treat said patient is with white people. Since the doctors and nurses have to treat the patient, it is their duty.

Now if a person insists that black people don't treat them, that is different than saying they prefer an Asian doctor. However, it is clear that a hospital can not be accommodating to all requests, and it should be with in the limits of reasonableness.

Personally, would find it appalling, if a doctor let a patient die, because the patient wanted a doctor of a different colour and that doctor, was just sitting in the cafe eating pudding at the time.

[Chinese Regions]

Why should the doctor's level of melanin matter? Unless the patient has some symptom that makes them glow a lot of UV light...

[Central Africa]

Maybe it would do a racist some good to learn, after waking up from life saving surgery, that an ethnic or religious minority saved his/her life?

[Great Nepal]

That's an exception, because of reasons that one can explain. One cannot logically explain why they can't have a black or Asian doctor, on the other hand.

What if it is a simple matter of preference? or what if the patient is clearly not being logical? Besides, the Doctors and nurses are the ones who have to be logical. I mean if there is a patient who is brought into a hospital and screams bloody murder whenever a black person is around, the only way to treat said patient is with white people. Since the doctors and nurses have to treat the patient, it is their duty.

Now if a person insists that black people don't treat them, that is different than saying they prefer an Asian doctor. However, it is clear that a hospital can not be accommodating to all requests, and it should be with in the limits of reasonableness.

Personally, would find it appalling, if a doctor let a patient die, because the patient wanted a doctor of a different colour and that doctor, was just sitting in the cafe eating pudding at the time.

Unless there is conformed valid medical reason for patients request (as in case with abuse), hospital shouldn't go out of its way to accommodate patients request. If it has a doctor fitting the criteria who is free, s/he can perform the procedure however if there is no such personnel, hospital should just make it clear that no such person exists and refusal to continue treatment may have following consequences <insert appropriate medical consequences>. That is end of hospital's duty, if the patient then chooses to give consent, hospital incurs further duty of care to ensure they get best quality of care however if the patient withholds consent and dies, they can be held to full account.
Of course if doctor is free, then attempt should be made to bring him in to treat the patient.

[Britanno]

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 agree. If a patient is fussy about who they are treated by, don't treat them. You shouldn't be able too pick and choose who provides your medical assistance unless it is something to do with 'various areas' of your body.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

What if it is a simple matter of preference? or what if the patient is clearly not being logical?

If they have capacity then they'll just have to get over themselves and accept their place within the healthcare team.

Besides, the Doctors and nurses are the ones who have to be logical. I mean if there is a patient who is brought into a hospital and screams bloody murder whenever a black person is around, the only way to treat said patient is with white people. Since the doctors and nurses have to treat the patient, it is their duty.

They have a duty to treat all patients equally. There's no duty to bend over for bigots. I've had numerous cunts decline my care because of my nationality and I've informed them all they have the option of taking a walk or getting over it and accepting the care offered. Funny enough they all caved.

Personally, would find it appalling, if a doctor let a patient die, because the patient wanted a doctor of a different colour and that doctor, was just sitting in the cafe eating pudding at the time.

We can't blame ourselves for the stupidity of others.

[Pope Joan]

I know a local hospital which does allow for such preferences. This is especially true for religion; if the patient wants a Catholic or Jewish or Muslim practitioner, they will get one if that it practical. If not, they will at least get one familiar with and not hostile to that tradition.

Why not? If it comforts and reassures the injured, wouldn't that make recovery easier?

[Osterlais]

They have a duty to treat all patients equally. There's no duty to bend over for bigots. I've had numerous cunts decline my care because of my nationality and I've informed them all they have the option of taking a walk or getting over it and accepting the care offered. Funny enough they all caved.

There is a duty to treat patients, no matter who they are. If for some reason (presumably, insanity on part of the patient) it is easier just to switch doctors, why not?

We can't blame ourselves for the stupidity of others.

Correct, but we shouldn't stand idle and let the stupid people die.

[Olthar]

Only Latinos can operate on me, but the nurses must be Asian. If a doctor has to deliver bad news to my family, I want it to be done by a Jewish man. If a doctor has to deliver good news to my family, I want it to be done by someone of mixed ethnicity. When I press the emergency call button, only LGBT individuals should respond. Finally, one and only one of the aforementioned people must be able to speak French.

[Patriqvinia]

"Seems to" and "maybe" are rather poor justifications for extortion.

OK, then. Taxpayer funded national health care DOES produce better health care outcomes for less cash. It's a CLEARLY BETTER idea than private-sector health insurance.

And it does justify "extortion". Easily.

You're an out-of-practice Ronpaulite. Give it up already. All the cool kids are fascists now.

1. Prove it.
2. That's like, your opinion, man.
3. Ron Paul is a minarchist, I am not.

[AiliailiA]

OK, then. Taxpayer funded national health care DOES produce better health care outcomes for less cash. It's a CLEARLY BETTER idea than private-sector health insurance.

And it does justify "extortion". Easily.

You're an out-of-practice Ronpaulite. Give it up already. All the cool kids are fascists now.

1. Prove it.
2. That's like, your opinion, man.
3. Ron Paul is a minarchist, I am not.

1. First assure me that you will accept international comparisons as proof. Without them there is no way of proving it: health outcomes are a measureable real-world phenomenon and can't be "proven" by an economic model.
2. As is your claim that outcomes don't justify "extortion". Rather amusing how you accuse me of being vague and then put "rather poor" in the same sentence.
3. A government which doesn't provide any healthcare seems pretty minimal to me. EDIT: Oh look, I see in your sig you're a voluntaryist. I withdraw the accusation you're a Ronpaulite: he's relatively practical.