DescentBB

Listening to NPR this morning I heard an article on the following:

*A South Carolina doctor is asking the American Medical Association to approve as ethical a policy that would permit doctors to refuse treating medical malpractice lawyers. The proposal demonstrates how heated the debate over medical malpractice has become.*

It was interesting and a bit scary. While I understand the sentiment behind it and even somewhat agree with it, I think it is a very dangerous precedent to set. I donâ??t like the idea of Doctors being able to choose who they will or wonâ??t treat based on what the perspective patient does for a living or what their social views are.

Thoughts?

If all malpractice suits were nothing but a fraud then sure, don't treat them. But that's far from the case so it boils down to trying to exclude someone from treatment because they might perpetrate a fraud...

Why not refuse prescribing medicine to all humans because they might actually be drug addicts?

I hope this doctor is just engaging in some hyperbole and not actually serious...but I live here in S.C. and am reminded daily of the idiots that run this asylum, so I'm not betting on it.

Wouldn't this be akin to ER staff refusing to save the life of a suspected killer who was injured in a shootout with police? As far as I know, that sort of thing usually doesn't happen, and as despicable as the whole malpractice situation has become, it's still far less evil than murder.

I think the difference is they are talking about non-critical care.

It won't happen, but it's funny anyway!