Witnessing a colleague infusing pro-life ideas into a patient

[plainfacts]

And, might I add... a d***head.

There is nothing "unprofessional" about giving your opinion. I could tell someone that it is my opinion that they should try to make up with their wife after a fight, but Lord, they don't have to take it. They can do whatever they want. In the whole scheme of things on this planet, do you honestly believe you will have done anyone a service by calling them unprofessional, sabotaging them, and encouraging someone to abort their child? Really?

It is unprofessional for an M3 to give their uninformed opinion on such serious business such as Down's syndrome, and calling other people dickheads on a forum. I think I would have done the medical profession a service by getting these "tools" out of medicine.

I personally would never abort my child for having Down's syndrome but could still give a balanced opinion on the matter instead of trying to scare the patient into obeying my beliefs. I would never give this opinion as an M3 and I wonder what kind of person is running around, as a medical student, preaching to the patients.

And for the record, Plainfacts, I will quit medicine the day that a medical student gets expelled for discouraging a patient from having an abortion. No medical school on this planet would expel a student for that, and you are a tool and a half for even thinking this could happen.

Students don't get expelled from medical school for anything remotely resembling what the thread starter is describing. You'll get expelled for sneaking morphine from your patients or cheating on an exam or telling your classmates that you're planning on kidnapping a woman and child for your own personal slaves.

Hence, why I wrote "make sure they start acting professionally or..." If you could get them expelled I would see it as a sweet bonus.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nocebo]

And, might I add... a d***head.

Just a quick question: if you're so sure that you're on the right side of this argument on its merits alone, why do you feel the need to resort to juvenile name calling?

I'm not intending to pass judgment on either side here--but shouldn't professionalism as a physician include being able to disagree with a colleague in a civil manner? So maybe you're not a tattler, but you're a loose cannon who blows up at your colleagues when you disagree with them. I doubt a reputation as a hothead is any better.

In conclusion: don't wait until after the fact to complain (OP) and don't be an ***hole (too many people here to name individually)

 

[coldweatherblue]

I think I would have done the medical profession a service by getting these "tools" out of medicine.

If you could get them expelled I would see it as a sweet bonus.

wow brah, your hate is intense.

 

[plainfacts]

wow brah, your hate is intense.

My opinion is that patient should decide if they want to keep their baby on objective evidence from all sides. That includes that taking care of their child is not only hard work but also a very rewarding relationship with an adorable child. And that people with Down's syndrome are absolutely adorable human beings.

If they decide they do not want to keep the baby due to a Down syndrome I would not in any way push them into keeping the baby. A baby with downs is very vulnerable and it would break my heart to think that such a vulnerable, wonderful human would have to grow up with parents who doesn't love him or her, and might treat their child horribly. In a perfect world every parent would want to keep their babies and love them but reality is a different matter. If the parents do not want to keep the baby I would seriously doubt their dedication in raising and loving their child which would be a horrible situation for the child.

If I was an attending and an M3 would jump in an override me on such an important matter I would get hateful, yes. An M3 should understand that it might be inappropriate as well.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Would you be all up in arms about this if only the abortion side was presented? Of course not. You'd probably be posting a thread lauding your progressive and level-headed colleague. There's your bias.

Panda, as abrasive as he may be, got this one right on the head...

Personally, I think what happened was unprofessional. The parents were asking for information about abortion (an accepted, legal, medical intervention) and she tried to talk them out of it based on her own religious beliefs. If they had asked her opinion/belief, she could have stated her opinion and with a statement confirming it was her belief.

A doctor telling someone "life begins at conception" means more than Joe Nobody on the subway hollering it as he hands out poorly-xeroxed fliers. You're a doctor. A person of science. The medical expert they come to for information on the medical science of the human body. For all they know, you're stating it based on clinical evidence that confirms your statement, which you asserted as FACT. That's messed up. You shouldn't be using your position to fit your patients into your moral mold. We're not talking about whether you prefer to treat borderline diabetics with diet & exercise instead of drugs, that's clinical judgment. Your patients come to you for clinical judgment, not your religious beliefs. If you can HONESTLY say that you recommend against abortion based on your CLINICAL JUDGMENT of the health consequences to your patient, then by all means give them your clinical opinion. But let's not kid ourselves, this is not clinical judgment, it's a moral one.

 

[The Angriest Bird]

In reponses to post #60:

Would you be all up in arms about this if only the abortion side was presented? Of course not. You'd probably be posting a thread lauding your progressive and level-headed colleague. There's your bias.

My post #27

By the way, it's up to you for whether believing me or not, but if the girl had given an equally biased pro-choice presentation, I'd be equally upset and not okay with it.

 

[8744]

Personally, I think what happened was unprofessional. The parents were asking for information about abortion (an accepted, legal, medical intervention) and she tried to talk them out of it based on her own religious beliefs. If they had asked her opinion/belief, she could have stated her opinion and with a statement confirming it was her belief.

A doctor telling someone "life begins at conception" means more than Joe Nobody on the subway hollering it as he hands out poorly-xeroxed fliers. You're a doctor. A person of science. The medical expert they come to for information on the medical science of the human body. For all they know, you're stating it based on clinical evidence that confirms your statement, which you asserted as FACT. That's messed up. You shouldn't be using your position to fit your patients into your moral mold. We're not talking about whether you prefer to treat borderline diabetics with diet & exercise instead of drugs, that's clinical judgment. Your patients come to you for clinical judgment, not your religious beliefs. If you can HONESTLY say that you recommend against abortion based on your CLINICAL JUDGMENT of the health consequences to your patient, then by all means give them your clinical opinion. But let's not kid ourselves, this is not clinical judgment, it's a moral one.

The other thing is that you all have to avoid letting your egos swell. As far as influencing patients, your opinions as a doctor are not very important to patients and they will do what they want to do when they want to do it pretty much at will and almost as if they never heard you at all. The young couple in question have already made up their minds what they are going to do (whether to keep or abort) and there is very little anybody can say to change their decision. To think otherwise is incredibly patronizing.

The notion, in other words, that you are going to be some kind of wise counselor to an appreciative and compliant peasantry is one you should disabuse yourselves of quickly. It just ain't like that. Certainly a third-year medical student, particularly if he is of the traditional high-school to college to medical school variety, will have even less of an influence on his patients.

Remember, generally patients will only follow advice if it is convenient for them or if it meshes with a plan of action upon which they have already decided. If I were to, in a fit of righteous conservative fury, thunder at the patients my belief that they not abort their baby, if they don't want to keep it they will thank me respectfully, sheepishly file out of the room, and go directly to planned parenthood; my influence over them having lasted less than the time it took for them to walk down the hall.

 

[Gut Shot]

The other thing is that you all have to avoid letting your egos swell.

Yes, that would be good advice.

 

[Jwax]

Here's my stance: What this family is going to do regardless of what the third year medical student says. I'm assuming she's seeing a resident or an attending as well who will give them the their perspective, they're going to read about it on the internet, talk to friends/clergy/whatever, and in the end they make their own decision.

To think we don't color all the advice we give patients by our biases is fool hardy. In situations like this, I thnk the best we can do is just answer questions, not give our own information because what we put forward and exclude is a bias in and of itself. I don't think your fellow student was wrong, just not the most right.

Best statement on this thread (although I admit I tired of reading it halfway through). At first I was a little annoyed at the possible lack of mentioning all the problems with having a Down's baby, but Johhny's right. They are not just going to hear this one 3rd year's advice and keep the kid, end of story. Likelihood that this 5 or 10 minute pro-life MSIII speech sways a family who isn't up for the challenge in raising a DS kid is nil.

Besides, if McCain-Palin win the election, this will be a pointless conversation any way because they'll make it illegal to abort based on the child's future disabilities.

Edit * just read up a little and Panda made the same comment of the family's decision not being impacted by a lowly 3rd year... so I guess this point has been hammered to the ground. Sorry for the redundancy.

 

[45408]

Hence, why I wrote "make sure they start acting professionally or..." If you could get them expelled I would see it as a sweet bonus.

great attitude, chief.

 

[Ginzo]

Am I required to report her?

You're doing it WRONG.

Why are you so concerned about what the other medical students are doing when you're still very much learning yourself?

Unless one of the other students is doing something blatantly wrong like stealing pain pills or doing something that negatively impacts patient care, you're probably better off not bringing every little whiny issue to your overworked attending. Your attending has more important things to worry about than some medical student giving an epic fail of a moral lecture to a patient.

 

[plainfacts]

great attitude, chief.

So what's your attitude? That it is a right, for everyone who wants to, to become a doctor?

 

[8744]

So what's your attitude? That it is a right, for everyone who wants to, to become a doctor?

Why would you want anybody to be expelled from medical school? What business of yours is it?

 

[justsomeguy]

The only issue I might have with a case like this is that I don't think an MS3 should be counseling the patient on touchy subjects without permission from the attending. Telling the patient he has strep throat and that he will need a course of antibiotics? Fine, no big deal. But. counseling the patient on abortion or telling the patient he has metastatic cancer? I'd check with the attending to see how he would like to approach this topic, first.

But, in any case, you got to learn to chill. If you really felt so strongly about it, you should have stepped in and presented the side on the issue that you felt was so horrifically omitted. By not doing so, wouldn't you be in the wrong, too, for not giving the patient what you feel is correct information? If not, then just let it go. It's not like your classmate cut off the wrong leg then tried to fudge the chart to hide this error. You don't need to make your classmate look bad. You don't need to go and try to get your classmate in trouble. That's just poor etiquette.

But, in the end, the patient is not going to listen to an MS3. Most of the time, they don't even listen to the attending's advice if it goes against their basic beliefs or wishes. If the patients look like they were significantly influenced, perhaps they just merely heard what they wanted to hear and was reassured that someone else on this miserable planet thinks the same way they do.

 

[Slide]

I would let this one go if I were you, GY. If you discuss this specific incident with your attending, the best thing that will happen is that your colleague might get a lecture about it, but what will probably happen is it'll put you in a negative light among your other M3s and could lead to some major drama afterwards. There are some fights you need to fight and make a stand, but this isn't one of them. If you feel a need, talk to your colleague privately about the issue.

And yes, I can understand the situation because it's the exact same here. Just mentioning the "A" word down here causes controversy alone. Sometimes you just have to roll with it.

 

[45408]

So what's your attitude? That it is a right, for everyone who wants to, to become a doctor?

Why do you care? Why stick your nose in other people's business? If someone presents a one-sided opinion on an ethical issue, that's cause for expelling someone from med school, leaving them with a $120,000 loan tab? You're a vengeful little spite. We're not talking about someone molesting or assaulting a patient. Keep a little perspective in life.

 

[bcat85]

Why do you care? Why stick your nose in other people's business? If someone presents a one-sided opinion on an ethical issue, that's cause for expelling someone from med school, leaving them with a $120,000 loan tab? You're a vengeful little spite. We're not talking about someone molesting or assaulting a patient. Keep a little perspective in life.

 

[Ariodant]

If "pro-life is the only way to go" was what the student trying to present, then I might have some problems with that. IMHO, a better way to present personal opinions could be "these are all the +s of keeping this baby, which is why I'm recommending you to continue the pregnancy. But my buddy Good Yeast may want to chime in on some +s of terminating the pregnancy, if you are interested". It's ok to have a bias, and the patient should be made aware of that.

 

[francisco84]

Is there really ANYONE in the USofA that is not aware of abortion? Seriously, planned parenthood is in nearly every town in America. The pluses of abortion are pretty self-evident. People act like abortion is some obscure experimental treatment that without the doctor presenting a fair and balanced view of it the patient will never know it exists.

 

[VincentAdultman]

If you support abortion, your a terrorist.


YES I WIN THE THREAD

 

[dienekes88]

Personally, I think what happened was unprofessional. The parents were asking for information about abortion (an accepted, legal, medical intervention) and she tried to talk them out of it based on her own religious beliefs. If they had asked her opinion/belief, she could have stated her opinion and with a statement confirming it was her belief.

A doctor telling someone "life begins at conception" means more than Joe Nobody on the subway hollering it as he hands out poorly-xeroxed fliers. You're a doctor. A person of science. The medical expert they come to for information on the medical science of the human body. For all they know, you're stating it based on clinical evidence that confirms your statement, which you asserted as FACT. That's messed up. You shouldn't be using your position to fit your patients into your moral mold. We're not talking about whether you prefer to treat borderline diabetics with diet & exercise instead of drugs, that's clinical judgment. Your patients come to you for clinical judgment, not your religious beliefs. If you can HONESTLY say that you recommend against abortion based on your CLINICAL JUDGMENT of the health consequences to your patient, then by all means give them your clinical opinion. But let's not kid ourselves, this is not clinical judgment, it's a moral one.

Nobody said it was a religious belief. To some people, it is a fact independent of religion. "Facts" are not as static as you want them to be as all things are subject to interpretation. Your "fact" that life doesn't begin until birth is nothing more than your interpretation of the "facts."

Like someone has already said, the cat is out of the bag. Abortion is legal and the people know about it. Presenting the other side of the case isn't going to dissuade them if it's really what they want to do.

The other thing is that you all have to avoid letting your egos swell. As far as influencing patients, your opinions as a doctor are not very important to patients and they will do what they want to do when they want to do it pretty much at will and almost as if they never heard you at all. The young couple in question have already made up their minds what they are going to do (whether to keep or abort) and there is very little anybody can say to change their decision. To think otherwise is incredibly patronizing.

The notion, in other words, that you are going to be some kind of wise counselor to an appreciative and compliant peasantry is one you should disabuse yourselves of quickly. It just ain't like that. Certainly a third-year medical student, particularly if he is of the traditional high-school to college to medical school variety, will have even less of an influence on his patients.

Remember, generally patients will only follow advice if it is convenient for them or if it meshes with a plan of action upon which they have already decided. If I were to, in a fit of righteous conservative fury, thunder at the patients my belief that they not abort their baby, if they don't want to keep it they will thank me respectfully, sheepishly file out of the room, and go directly to planned parenthood; my influence over them having lasted less than the time it took for them to walk down the hall.

This sums up my limited experience in the health care field.

 

[karbosshack]

Scratch a liberal and you will find a policeman (to paraphrase Lenin). Dude. Don't be a tool. The world will not end, the Heavens will not 'ope and disgorge a calamity, and the Horsemen will not be abroad if a doctor counsels a patient in a manner consistent with his moral beliefs.

It is neither illegal, unethical, nor unacceptable to speak frankly to your patients on any subject about which you feel it is relevant to speak nor is there any law requiring private citizens or doctors to provide, whether in private life or business, equal time for all opposing points of view.

Scratch my ass and I may find you just chillin

 

[DrZeke]

what the heck are you talking about. No one is trying to be a troll. You yourself said that nothing your friend said was wrong, and she/he did give the risks of abortion. Since that is the case, it seems (whether or not you realize it) you are upset because you don't agree with it (btw human nature). I also disagree with the person who said pro lifers are one sided with no choice, and pro choicers are just sooo devils advocate laying the ground work for both sides. I know plenty of people who are pro choice who jump to the abortion card (if a young girl is pregnant, if someone is poor, or other situations) without even considering the other side (good could come out of the child). I have also seen very one sided pro lifers. and many prolifers who respect that other people will have them for their reasons but don't agree with it...don't paint everyone with the same brush (no matter what your side)

It's probably beating a dead horse, but I think the OPs issue with what his colleague said is that she didn't talk about BOTH sides:

Sure she said, ok abortion risk are such and such and kids with down syndrome can be happy and whatnot. But from what I read in the original post, it didn't sound like this colleague ever said anything to the affect of: "raising a child with down syndrome may present some challenges, thought there are many support groups. If you feel that an abortion is something you are considering, I can provide you with additional information or refer you to a family life/genetics counselor to discuss some of these issues further so that you can make an educated decision".

What is wrong with that? Just because I might not want an abortion for myself and would be inclined to keep the child, doesn't mean I have to shelter someone about to make that decision from the facts. IMHO it is pretty unethical to leave out important information. The proper thing for this doctor (she isn't one, so she shouldn't have brought her personal bias to the table) is to say that she will provide the patient with someone to discuss this further or that she can't provide that kind of information there and that the patient should find a second opinion.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

wow brah, your hate is intense.

What can I say about this thread that hasn't already been said about Baghdad? It looks bombed out and depleted.

 

[plainfacts]

Why do you care? Why stick your nose in other people's business? If someone presents a one-sided opinion on an ethical issue, that's cause for expelling someone from med school, leaving them with a $120,000 loan tab? You're a vengeful little spite. We're not talking about someone molesting or assaulting a patient. Keep a little perspective in life.

Better to get this person out of medicine now than later when she has even more debt. If something is not my business; it is her debt. That is her own problem which she has to deal with.

She could see it as a message from God. Surely, he wouldn't let her be expelled if she was not meant to be. There are other careers that will fit her better that she should pursue.

 

[badasshairday]

OP, after seeing your colleage present only one side of the issue, you realized that it was not balanced. Therefore it was your duty to inform the patient about the other side of the issue.

 

[ZagDoc]

Better to get this person out of medicine now than later when she has even more debt. If something is not my business; it is her debt. That is her own problem which she has to deal with.

She could see it as a message from God. Surely, he wouldn't let her be expelled if she was not meant to be. There are other careers that will fit her better that she should pursue.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[dienekes88]

Better to get this person out of medicine now than later when she has even more debt. If something is not my business; it is her debt. That is her own problem which she has to deal with.

She could see it as a message from God. Surely, he wouldn't let her be expelled if she was not meant to be. There are other careers that will fit her better that she should pursue.

*sigh* This post makes me sad.

By the way, why are you assuming she's religious?

 

[plainfacts]

*sigh* This post makes me sad.

By the way, why are you assuming she's religious?

You think she's not? It is America we're talking about. The country where the people would rather trust a murderer than an atheist.

Also, conservatives are usually very strict on people following rules. Why is this topic such an exception? She clearly acted outside her scope of responsibilty. If it is ok for people to be expelled for being homosexual then clearly unprofessional behaviour should be a certain ticket out of medicine. Even if the unprofessional behaviour conforms to traditional conservative morals.

 

[VincentAdultman]

You think she's not? It is America we're talking about. The country where the people would rather trust a murderer than an atheist.

Also, conservatives are usually very strict on people following rules. Why is this topic such an exception? She clearly acted outside her scope of responsibilty. If it is ok for people to be expelled for being homosexual then clearly unprofessional behaviour should be a certain ticket out of medicine. Even if the unprofessional behaviour conforms to traditional conservative morals.

Yes, I'm sure you would be so quick to endorse expulsion if she was "infusing" (lol) pro-choice ideals into the patient.

Do you really think she should be expelled for this? Really? REALLY?

I'm conservative, but if it was me watching this, I'd think it was shady as hell and say something to the student. However, some people are really flying off the handle here, and I suspect that it's due to the message itself, and not in its one-sided delivery.

 

[8744]

You think she's not? It is America we're talking about. The country where the people would rather trust a murderer than an atheist.

Also, conservatives are usually very strict on people following rules. Why is this topic such an exception? She clearly acted outside her scope of responsibilty. If it is ok for people to be expelled for being homosexual then clearly unprofessional behaviour should be a certain ticket out of medicine. Even if the unprofessional behaviour conforms to traditional conservative morals.

Whoa. I am Mr. Conservative (...uh, "Doctor" Conservative I mean) and I am obviously a lot less uptight about following rules than you are. In fact, I am against most rules on the basis that society has become entirely too legalistic and complicated laws have replaced common sense and civil behavior. There is difference between living under some general moral principles and blindly following rules, you understand, and you clearly cannot grasp the difference.

Not advising or counseling a patient to have an abortion? That's nothing but living your religious and moral convictions which, and this may be hard for you to swallow, for many people supersede "rules" (but keep in mind that you are entirely making up the rule that I have to give patients all of their options in every situation). Trying to get a fellow student expelled for violating one of your little rules and acting in a manner that you think should be considered unprofessional? Why, that's nothing but garden-variety pettiness and a distinct love for rules and regulations.

Suppose you were in a Louisiana public hospital and I caught you, in violation of actual state law, discussing abortion with a patient. Should I try to get you expelled for violating the rules?

I also want to point out that being a doctor is just a job. The training is long and you need a license from the state to do it but it is not a crusade or a religious endeavor and, except that you think medicine is some kind of cult, there is no requirement for an absolute code of behavior that is rigidly enforced on all doctors. It's bad enough that bureaucracies and elected representatives who know nothing about medicine are gunning after us without you adding to the problem.

 

[dienekes88]

You think she's not? It is America we're talking about. The country where the people would rather trust a murderer than an atheist.

Also, conservatives are usually very strict on people following rules. Why is this topic such an exception? She clearly acted outside her scope of responsibilty. If it is ok for people to be expelled for being homosexual then clearly unprofessional behaviour should be a certain ticket out of medicine. Even if the unprofessional behaviour conforms to traditional conservative morals.

A lot of people are pro-life for non-religious reasons, because not all conservatives are religious. I'm not saying she isn't religious, but I wouldn't assume that she is religious.

Way to over-generalize. Looks like you're imposing your rules and code of ethics on everyone... forcing them to follow your rules. Ironic.

 

[plainfacts]

A lot of people are pro-life for non-religious reasons, because not all conservatives are religious. I'm not saying she isn't religious, but I wouldn't assume that she is religious.

Way to over-generalize. Looks like you're imposing your rules and code of ethics on everyone... forcing them to follow your rules. Ironic.

No there is a slim chance she is not religious. That she starts to preach as an MS3 tells me she must either be fundamentalist religious or some strange extreme-left-humanist who think her dogma is some kind of scientific law. That she tries to use her 2 week embryology course for presenting her opinion as fact adds further evidence that she is going to be a problem further in her career. Either way, she broke a rule and I am well within my right to uphold it seeing as I am tired of unprofessional doctors who draw my profession through the mud.

I am not against rules, don't know where you got that from, but I get pissed off by rules like forbidding evolution in schools, banning homosexuals and premarital sex, banning people suffering from depression, banning abortion and stem cell research. I'd rather uphold rules which benefit society and the profession rather than destroy because conservativism said so.

Chances are this girl is probably on of those pushing for abortion bans and stem cell research. Medicine certainly don't need yet another nutjob trying to use her MD to promote crap legislation which hinders research and health care.

 

[plainfacts]

(but keep in mind that you are entirely making up the rule that I have to give patients all of their options in every situation)

By rule I didn't mean written rule but obvious standard of professional behaviour.

 

[dienekes88]

I am not against rules, don't know where you got that from, but I get pissed off by rules like forbidding evolution in schools, banning homosexuals and premarital sex, banning people suffering from depression, banning abortion and stem cell research. I'd rather uphold rules which benefit society and the profession rather than destroy because conservativism said so.

The Irony is in the fact that you have intense distaste for conservatives, who "are usually very strict on people following rules."

However, you're pretty strict on people following your rules.

Chances are this girl is probably on of those pushing for abortion bans and stem cell research. Medicine certainly don't need yet another nutjob trying to use her MD to promote crap legislation which hinders research and health care.

You're making a pretty big assumption there.

Just as not all liberals are the same, not all conservatives are the same. Should I just assume that you are afflicted with "Not In My Back Yard"-syndrome and have all the trappings of liberal hypocrisy? Should I just assume that you don't think about anything but instead just jump into arguments or situations that you don't necessarily understand? Should I just assume that you believe that all things mainstream (e.g. chemotherapy and antibiotics) are regressive and symbolic of some greater attempt at corporate or governmental mind control? That would be ridiculous.

Your inability to tolerate other views seems to be a cardinal sin in your book. It looks like you should be expelled from your school too.

 

[dienekes88]

By rule I didn't mean written rule but obvious standard of professional behaviour.

That's the beauty of saying something's obvious. It's not necessarily obvious, but you can attempt to make other people feel dumb.

Interpretation and opinion can not be separated from life, because our perception of all these little "facts" is infused with our experiences and beliefs.

 

[Tired]

By rule I didn't mean written rule but obvious standard of professional behaviour.

I think you're confused.

While a feature of informed consent is presenting the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any procedure or treatment, there is no particular prohibition on advocating one course of action over others. In fact, we should be recommending one option over the others, since that's our role as health care experts.

I don't know where you got the idea that all options should be presented in a neutral manner. That's just stupid.

 

[8744]

By rule I didn't mean written rule but obvious standard of professional behaviour.

Oh come on now. "Obvious?" I think we can agree that pocketing the patient's fentanyl and shooting it up is wrong, as is seducing a patient but acting in a forthright and moral manner consistent with your reasonable ethical and religious beliefs? We have fallen a long way in this country when you not only allow but encourage some faceless bureaucracy (the AMA, for example) to dictate ethical behavior for everyone with no allowable deviation and justify it in the name of tolerance and open-mindedness.

You're wrong anyways. As I pointed out, the state legislatures of 47 (?) states, acting as representatives of the people, have reaffirmed that physicians cannot be forced to act in a manner inconsistent with their moral beliefs. That's the law, in other words, and no quasi-official unelected body can call any behavior "professional" (such as forcing doctors to discuss and refer for abortions) that is violation of the law.

Obviously the issue is not as obvious as you think it is.

 

[dienekes88]

Oh come on now. "Obvious?" I think we can agree that pocketing the patient's fentanyl and shooting it up is wrong, as is seducing a patient but acting in a forthright and moral manner consistent with your reasonable ethical and religious beliefs? We have fallen a long way in this country when you not only allow but encourage some faceless bureaucracy (the AMA, for example) to dictate ethical behavior for everyone with no allowable deviation and justify it in the name of tolerance and open-mindedness.

You're wrong anyways. As I pointed out, the state legislatures of 47 (?) states, acting as representatives of the people, have reaffirmed that physicians cannot be forced to act in a manner inconsistent with their moral beliefs. That's the law, in other words, and no quasi-official unelected body can call any behavior "professional" (such as forcing doctors to discuss and refer for abortions) that is violation of the law.

Obviously the issue is not as obvious as you think it is.

LAWS?! What a conservative ideal!

Everyone knows that laws are sexist, racist, ageist, heightist, protist, homophobic, polyprotic, and fattist. They're just the product of the marriage between Big Business and the government.

 

[plainfacts]

The Irony is in the fact that you have intense distaste for conservatives, who "are usually very strict on people following rules."

However, you're pretty strict on people following your rules.

I am not against rules. The point is this thread got flooded with conservatives who think this girl should be exempt from behaving professionally because suddenly rules are not important.

That's the beauty of saying something's obvious. It's not necessarily obvious, but you can attempt to make other people feel dumb.

Interpretation and opinion can not be separated from life, because our perception of all these little "facts" is infused with our experiences and beliefs.

What is your point? That it is not obvious that an M3 shouldn't give advice on abortion without consulting her attending? You don't think such advice should be given in a neutral manner?

I am sorry but I fail to see how the proper way to handle this is not
1) first give the objective facts
2) then state your religious convictions if you somehow think this adds value for your patient. I am sure it doesn't but feel free to do so, it's a free country after all.

I think you're confused.

While a feature of informed consent is presenting the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any procedure or treatment, there is no particular prohibition on advocating one course of action over others. In fact, we should be recommending one option over the others, since that's our role as health care experts.

I don't know where you got the idea that all options should be presented in a neutral manner. That's just stupid.

No, but there is professional behaviour and then there is unprofessional behaviour. In this case it is not even difficult for the girl to figure out that her way of doing it is unprofessional, and if she has trouble understanding it she will probably have a tendency to act unprofessionally in other situationens.

A good doctor does her best to let her patient make an informed decision. A bad doctor doesn't even try. Professional behaviour is to try your best being as good a physician as possible.

 

[plainfacts]

As I pointed out, the state legislatures of 47 (?) states, acting as representatives of the people, have reaffirmed that physicians cannot be forced to act in a manner inconsistent with their moral beliefs. That's the law, in other words, and no quasi-official unelected body can call any behavior "professional" (such as forcing doctors to discuss and refer for abortions) that is violation of the law.

Attendings evaluate M3s. This would be my evaluation of this student:

"The student scares and threatens patients. She is rude and condescending to patients beliefs and decisions. She is very unprofessional and thinks her personal beliefs are more important than other people and their beliefs. She also acts in an insulting manner toward me as an attending. I strongly encourage no one hiring this student to work in clinical medicine and strongly question her career in medicine. I only pray to God no patient sues me for letting her anywhere near them. Please, for the love of medicine, end this student's medical career."

Also, as soon as I would be informed I would tell her how much she has insulted me and my patients. How I hope she seriously rethink her career ambitions. And tell her I hope she never comes back to my rotation because I don't want to see her ever again. She is not welcome anywhere near my practice again and I pray to God I will one day forget that she exists so her existance stop torturing my mind.

 

[coldweatherblue]

Attendings evaluate M3s. This would be my evaluation of this student:

"The student scares and threatens patients. She is rude and condescending to patients beliefs and decisions. She is very unprofessional and thinks her personal beliefs are more important than other people and their beliefs. She also acts in an insulting manner toward me as an attending. I strongly encourage no one hiring this student to work in clinical medicine and strongly question her career in medicine. I only pray to God no patient sues me for letting her anywhere near them. Please, for the love of medicine, end this student's medical career."

We know nothing about this student other than one report given by one of her classmates. Do you honestly think that you are in a position to judge her ability and future in medicine based on an apparently biased secondary source?

although I will say if you are a troll you've been creative in assuming the role of devil's advocate.

 

[OncoCaP]

Attendings evaluate M3s. This would be my evaluation of this student:

"The student scares and threatens patients. ..."

Now tell me again what you were saying about being professional? Your rant doesn't seem very professional or accurate. It seems like you take the facts and then twist them in a rather imprecise and vengeful way. I'm at a loss as to how this would be an example of being professional.

 

[plainfacts]

We know nothing about this student other than one report given by one of her classmates. Do you honestly think that you are in a position to judge her ability and future in medicine based on an apparently biased secondary source?

although I will say if you are a troll you've been creative in assuming the role of devil's advocate.

Of course the evaluation was based on the text the OP wrote. What's your point? Can't we discuss this without being personally involved in the situation? You know what? Seeing the OP's earlier thread about REQUIRING a 400k$ wage to live I'm not even sure if he or his story is true but I can discuss this topic anyway. I assume the troll insult is your way of saying you're running out of ammo?

Wow, this is quite the inference in comparison to the Op's original story. You've drawn all sorts of conclusions that don't seem to be founded by the Op's discription.

Not all conservatives are religious, nor all of them nut jobs. A good part of this nation disagrees with abortion on moral grounds and to acuse us all of being nutjobs is quite an outrageous statement.

It is not inference - it is my opinion from the OP's description of his story. Had this happened in real life that is what my evaluation could have looked like if the student wasn't an outstanding student in other situations. But my evaluation is of course based on his story. And the evaluation is based on my opinion.

Not very outrageous, just my opinion and I stand by it. I admit that it is biased. It won't affect patient care since I still give all my patients the same standard of care regardless of their morals. Also I'm not really intersted in the morals of my patients. But I expect a high level of professionalism from co-workers and do not think this is too much to ask considering the wage and the respect from the public.

 

[plainfacts]

Now tell me again what you were saying about being professional? Your rant doesn't seem very professional or accurate. It seems like you take the facts and then twist them in a rather imprecise and vengeful way. I'm at a loss as to how this would be an example of being professional.

This is an evaluation. I am well within my right to give my opinion on the situation. She is basically scaring and threatening the parents into thinking they are commiting murder. Maybe you have another opinion but that is mine, but it is my evaluation so I will state mine not yours.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Oh come on now. "Obvious?" I think we can agree that pocketing the patient's fentanyl and shooting it up is wrong, as is seducing a patient but acting in a forthright and moral manner consistent with your reasonable ethical and religious beliefs? We have fallen a long way in this country when you not only allow but encourage some faceless bureaucracy (the AMA, for example) to dictate ethical behavior for everyone with no allowable deviation and justify it in the name of tolerance and open-mindedness.

You're wrong anyways. As I pointed out, the state legislatures of 47 (?) states, acting as representatives of the people, have reaffirmed that physicians cannot be forced to act in a manner inconsistent with their moral beliefs. That's the law, in other words, and no quasi-official unelected body can call any behavior "professional" (such as forcing doctors to discuss and refer for abortions) that is violation of the law.

Obviously the issue is not as obvious as you think it is.

I agree with you that physicians' actions should be protected, in that they should not be forced to do anything they feel is morally wrong, but I think they should be prohibited from doing wrong by their patients. I.e. doctors should not unduly manipulate patients' beliefs about their medical condition based on nonclinical judgment. They don't have to agree that abortion is legitimate, they don't even have to refer the patient, but they shouldn't give out misleading information. So doctors should be protected from moral errors of commission, but not from moral errors of omission. I think I used those terms correctly, but I'm a doofus so maybe not.

 

[coldweatherblue]

Of course the evaluation was based on the text the OP wrote. What's your point? Can't we discuss this without being personally involved in the situation? You know what? Seeing the OP's earlier thread about REQUIRING a 400k$ wage to live I'm not even sure if he or his story is true but I can discuss this topic anyway. I assume the troll insult is your way of saying you're running out of ammo?

lol, more of the same.. Generally when a majority disagrees with a sentiment it is best to step back and try to observe both your stance and the opposition's stance from a third person view and reevaluate your view. My point was that emphatically and repeatedly stating that the student deserves to be expelled based on one isolated incident from a secondary biased source is short-sighted and illogical since we know basically nothing about the student. I actually meant the troll thing as a compliment. But if you honestly believe this stuff it's a little strange and disconcerting.

 

[dienekes88]

I am not against rules. The point is this thread got flooded with conservatives who think this girl should be exempt from behaving professionally because suddenly rules are not important.

What is your point? That it is not obvious that an M3 shouldn't give advice on abortion without consulting her attending? You don't think such advice should be given in a neutral manner?

I am sorry but I fail to see how the proper way to handle this is not
1) first give the objective facts
2) then state your religious convictions if you somehow think this adds value for your patient. I am sure it doesn't but feel free to do so, it's a free country after all.

I never said you were against rules. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths... just like you're putting words into this poor girl's mouth. I just said it's ironic that you rail against these conservatives and then mimic them.

"Objective" is a very relative term based on your perception of the truth and your moral compass.

 

[dienekes88]

I agree with you that physicians' actions should be protected, in that they should not be forced to do anything they feel is morally wrong, but I think they should be prohibited from doing wrong by their patients. I.e. doctors should not unduly manipulate patients' beliefs about their medical condition based on nonclinical judgment. They don't have to agree that abortion is legitimate, they don't even have to refer the patient, but they shouldn't give out misleading information. So doctors should be protected from moral errors of commission, but not from moral errors of omission. I think I used those terms correctly, but I'm a doofus so maybe not.

In a pro-life physician's eyes, the fetus is a patient also. Who's the more "important" patient?

It's not a sin of omission if it's against his/her moral code to mention it. There are a few other things you could try: "Hey, you could always just wait 'til the kid is about 10 and then murder him if he doesn't turn out the way you want." That's not even on the table, because it's against everyone's moral code. We all "omit" things that we consider immoral, ridiculous, inconceivable, etc.

It's only misleading to you and perhaps half of the population. Why does your vote count more than anyone else's?

 

[plainfacts]

lol, more of the same.. Generally when a majority disagrees with a sentiment it is best to step back and try to observe both your stance and the opposition's stance from a third person view and reevaluate your view. My point was that emphatically and repeatedly stating that the student deserves to be expelled based on one isolated incident from a secondary biased source is short-sighted and illogical since we know basically nothing about the student. I actually meant the troll thing as a compliment. But if you honestly believe this stuff it's a little strange and disconcerting.

Well it's not like I will stalk up who this person is in real life. It's just an argument on SDN. It's just tiresome to read these constant conservative posts defending everything done in the name of conservatism and attacking everything else in the name of liberalism. Before I came here I didn't even know that the two most important things to consider before practicing medicine is:

1) My monetary compensation
2) What Would Jesus Do?

I guess I'll have to take a step back and reevaluate my stance then.