That's when you strangle them and throw them against a wall
Why is a woman requesting a female doctor perfectly understandable, but not the other? It doesn't take a lot of hard contemplating to realize the absurdity of such a double standard. As is noted in the linked article, many people are more comfortable being treated by people within their own demographic, whether it be gender, race or religion. I live a block away from the hospital here and know several people who work there, and these kinds of things happen all the time.I can understand a woman requesting a female doctor or vice versa - but not dictating what Colour/Creed/Nationality or Religion of medical staff when they are all trained to the same standard.
Better to inconvenience the patient, and induce Hippocratic Oath-violating stress, than to inconvenience the hospital? Really?Hospitals may well have to change rosters to accommodate one patient!!
There can never be equality as long as people are different from each other in any way. If everyone was exactly the same, we'd have equality. Going to McDonalds and requesting your burgers be flipped only by someone of a certain race, creed, color or gender is ridiculous, but it's not at all ridiculous when you're talking about things of an intimate, personal level such as medical care. You have to be comfortable with who is treating you, and it's not wrong for requesting it.Surely there can never be equality if this sort of thing is allowed.
Yes...it is their problem...and they should take it elsewhere. I wouldn't allow if it I were the hospital administrator. Preference based on qualifications, performance...sure. Preference based on stupidity? the same door that let you in will let you out.I don't care either. My primary care DR is a woman. I don't care if the person is a gay person with green skin and yellow eyes if they are good. MANY PEOPLE DO! Do we deny them their comfort? We treat the ENTIRE patient, not the just the illness or injury. If THEY chose to risk their lives, their problem.
Don't try to make sense out of it, it does not make sense.
Yes...it is their problem...and they should take it elsewhere. I wouldn't allow if it I were the hospital administrator. Preference based on qualifications, performance...sure. Preference based on stupidity? the same door that let you in will let you out.
But they offered the care needed. The idiot chose to be an idiot and refuse it. One less idiot... would be my thought.Then you very will kill someone. Not my idea of good care. No, I am NOT being dramatic, that is a VERY real chance. Is it worth a life?
Good questions by the way, makes me think and adds to the thread nicely.
But they offered the care needed. The idiot chose to be an idiot and refuse it. One less idiot... would be my thought.
Right now you are not hurt, sick, and you are rational. It DOES make sense to accept qualified care, to you. I can promise you that MANY people that rational on a daily basis OFTEN become otherwise when hurt or sick.
A GOOD provider does EVERYTHING they can, within safety limits, to provide for the needs of the PATIENT, not the staff's feelings.
Same question to you ......
Why then is not an upfront, open mandate?
"It's been called one of medicine's "open secrets" — allowing patients to refuse treatment by a doctor or nurse of another race"
It's not about the staff's feelings. It's about the fact that they offered competent care. Unless you can show me a qualification or a performance issue with that person, I would not allow a change based on bigotry. I just wouldn't allow it.Right now you are not hurt, sick, and you are rational. It DOES make sense to accept qualified care, to you. I can promise you that MANY people that rational on a daily basis OFTEN become otherwise when hurt or sick.
A GOOD provider does EVERYTHING they can, within safety limits, to provide for the needs of the PATIENT, not the staff's feelings.
It's not about the staff's feelings. It's about the fact that they offered competent care. Unless you can show me a qualification or a performance issue with that person, I would not allow a change based on bigotry. I just wouldn't allow it.
I'm not sure that I would even allow a change based on sex...as English Lady mentioned. It is a professional environment and duties should be assigned by qualifications and performance...nothing else.
I apologize, but I've read that question several times and I still don't understand it. Can you rephrase it, as if you are talking to a 3 year old?Turtle ...
Why then is not an upfront, open mandate?
If you are asking why it's an "open secret" rather than a promoted option that is openly and actively offered to patients, it's because hospitals and caregivers don't really want to encourage that sort of thing, for a plethora of reasons not the least of which it would, in fact, create a scheduling and staffing nightmare for the hospital. Most people really don't care who treats them, as long as they are qualified, as Rocketman said. But, for those who wouldn't even consider making such a request, if you offer them the option up front, now you've got them thinking about it, and if it's an option, why not take advantage of it? The fewer people who know that it's even an option, the better. So it's rather ironic that the nurse in the article is actually making the situation worse by educating the public about the option."It's been called one of medicine's "open secrets" — allowing patients to refuse treatment by a doctor or nurse of another race"
No sir...the patient is risking their own life. I didn't demand something stupid, they did. I've never made such an oath. I'm not sure that making an oath requires you to succumb to bigotry. Your oath is "do no harm"...what if the same guy pulled out a gun and pointed it at you?