Interviewer misinformed/full of it?

[MedPR]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I had an interview that went something like this:

Interviewer: Can you think of any controversial topics because of morality/religion?
Me: Abortion
Interviewer: If you were morally against abortion and you had a patient request one, what would you do?
Me: blah blah blah Refer blah blah blah
Interviewer: They trust only you and refuse to see another doctor.
Me: blah blah blah That's their prerogative, but unless they are dying I will stand by my moral code. blah blah blah
Interviewer: Well it's against the law to refuse treatment and they can sue you if they find out you referred them because you didn't want to do the treatment.
Me: 😕


I know there are special laws that "protect" physicians/hospitals in cases of abortion, so that's not my question. My question is whether or not my interviewer is correct about non-abortion things. I thought physician's were only obligated to treat in emergent/life threatening situations..?

 

[Goobs]

Man you have some bad interview luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Beyonder]

man you have some bad interview luck!


Sent from my iphone using tapatalk

+1

 

[Morzh]

It's not just abortion. Barring life-threatening situations, a healthcare provider always has the right to object to providing any service based on conscientious objection. The only thing I can think of is if you've established a fiduciary relationship with a patient then you have to be careful not to abandon them (in the legal sense), but it in the case of a voluntary procedure like an elective abortion you don't even technically *have* to refer them to anyone.

Now, the ethicists will be all over you if you abuse this right (conscientious objection to performing an elective abortion is NOT an example of abuse, though), and you may receive a censure from your own specialty board, but from a legal perspective your interviewer was wrong.

The physician has autonomy, too.

 

[dbeast]

The question itself wasn't really as important as getting the right answer... "Of couuuurse I'd be happy to compromise my values at the first sign of a lawsuit!"

Boom. Accepted.

 

[shinbeats]

The question itself wasn't really as important as getting the right answer... "Of couuuurse I'd be happy to compromise my values at the first sign of a lawsuit!"

Boom. Accepted.

+1 Thank you.

 

[487806]

It's not just abortion. Barring life-threatening situations, a healthcare provider always has the right to object to providing any service based on conscientious objection. The only thing I can think of is if you've established a fiduciary relationship with a patient then you have to be careful not to abandon them (in the legal sense), but it in the case of a voluntary procedure like an elective abortion you don't even technically *have* to refer them to anyone.

Now, the ethicists will be all over you if you abuse this right (conscientious objection to performing an elective abortion is NOT an example of abuse, though), and you may receive a censure from your own specialty board, but from a legal perspective your interviewer was wrong.

The physician has autonomy, too.

👍 Excellent point. Both the physician and patients have autonomy. So, what MedPR said was completely correct... Now, I'm still thinking what interviewer would have a problem with MedPR's answer? Probably he's testing him.

 

[La Presse]

How'd the rest of that interview go?

 

[MedPR]

It's not just abortion. Barring life-threatening situations, a healthcare provider always has the right to object to providing any service based on conscientious objection. The only thing I can think of is if you've established a fiduciary relationship with a patient then you have to be careful not to abandon them (in the legal sense), but it in the case of a voluntary procedure like an elective abortion you don't even technically *have* to refer them to anyone.

Now, the ethicists will be all over you if you abuse this right (conscientious objection to performing an elective abortion is NOT an example of abuse, though), and you may receive a censure from your own specialty board, but from a legal perspective your interviewer was wrong.

The physician has autonomy, too.

Ok this is what I thought too. Thank you.

+1 Thank you.

I thought dbeast was being sarcastic 😕

How'd the rest of that interview go?

Terribly. Wait listed.

 

[tn4596]

Just bad luck, I had one similar interview with a similar result. Though, I am not interested in that particular school anyway (probably because of that bad interview).

 

[dbeast]

Ok this is what I thought too. Thank you.



I thought dbeast was being sarcastic 😕




Terribly. Wait listed.

At this point, I don't even know anymore 🙁

Also, wait list does not = terribly... rejection = terribly. Wait list is more like mediocre. Chin up bub.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So I had an interview that went something like this:

Interviewer: Can you think of any controversial topics because of morality/religion?
Me: Abortion
Interviewer: If you were morally against abortion and you had a patient request one, what would you do?
Me: blah blah blah Refer blah blah blah
Interviewer: They trust only you and refuse to see another doctor.
Me: blah blah blah That's their prerogative, but unless they are dying I will stand by my moral code. blah blah blah
Interviewer: Well it's against the law to refuse treatment and they can sue you if they find out you referred them because you didn't want to do the treatment.
Me: 😕


I know there are special laws that "protect" physicians/hospitals in cases of abortion, so that's not my question. My question is whether or not my interviewer is correct about non-abortion things. I thought physician's were only obligated to treat in emergent/life threatening situations..?

That interviewer is full of it. Physicians can fire patients. It is not uncommon. It is only in emergency situations (and then I believe only in departments where it is anticipated) that a physician cannot refuse care. I.e. a dude starts bleeding after slicing his arm open in a restaurant- you aren't legally obligated to do anything because doing so makes you liable for the outcome. Pretty sure that logic extends to outpatient clinics but I may be wrong. Either way, no. Your patient cannot sue you for this

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Mehd School]

I think the interviewer was trying to view how you reacted in a hostile light.

Or he was simply a jackass. I've found out that some times you are interviewed by individuals that have no say whatsoever in your admissions process.

Anyway, chin up, you've got some acceptances and you're an excellent applicant. I would have answered the same way. Honestly, even if he were correct, I think that would be something generally not known as a pre-med student.

 

[def1]

That interviewer is full of it. Physicians can fire patients. It is not uncommon. It is only in emergency situations (and then I believe only in departments where it is anticipated) that a physician cannot refuse care. I.e. a dude starts bleeding after slicing his arm open in a restaurant- you aren't legally obligated to do anything because doing so makes you liable for the outcome. Pretty sure that logic extends to outpatient clinics but I may be wrong. Either way, no. Your patient cannot sue you for this

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I read up on the ethical laws about this some time ago so it might not be completely accurate but as a physician you have a duty to treat your patient. This means you can't fire your patients unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the patient not paying, etc. However even when you fire a patient you are responsible for refering that patient to a new physician and you must give them adequete notice.

In the case of treatments that you feel are morally wrong, you have the option to refer the patient to another physician.

 

[MedPR]

I read up on the ethical laws about this some time ago so it might not be completely accurate but as a physician you have a duty to treat your patient. This means you can't fire your patients unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the patient not paying, etc. However even when you fire a patient you are responsible for refering that patient to a new physician and you must give them adequete notice.

In the case of treatments that you feel are morally wrong, you have the option to refer the patient to another physician.

Ethical laws?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

I read up on the ethical laws about this some time ago so it might not be completely accurate but as a physician you have a duty to treat your patient. This means you can't fire your patients unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the patient not paying, etc. However even when you fire a patient you are responsible for refering that patient to a new physician and you must give them adequete notice.

In the case of treatments that you feel are morally wrong, you have the option to refer the patient to another physician.

Physicians fire patients for things that arent so unusual. Should you? Well.... but CAN you? Yeah. The take home point is that there is just never a situation where a patient will have a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Morzh]

I read up on the ethical laws about this some time ago so it might not be completely accurate but as a physician you have a duty to treat your patient. This means you can't fire your patients unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the patient not paying, etc. However even when you fire a patient you are responsible for refering that patient to a new physician and you must give them adequete notice.

In the case of treatments that you feel are morally wrong, you have the option to refer the patient to another physician.

Don't even need extenuating circumstances.

Docs "fire" patients all the time for not vaccinating their kids, not quitting smoking, being obese, no-showing for multiple appointments, etc. Not necessarily for these things themselves (aside from the no-show), but more because after countless conversations the "relationship" just isn't working out because the two parties aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

I have a personal acquaintance who is quite obese and this eventually led to chronic knee issues, including a couple of surgeries. Over and over again her doc emphasized that her weight was the source of the problems and until she lost significant poundage, everything he or the ortho specialists could do was merely a short-term solution. She didn't lose weight (just gained more) and kept hounding her physician over and over to "do something more". Eventually he just told her that he was sorry but he couldn't see her anymore until she had lost weight. Was quite sad since I saw all this from the "outside" as a friend of the patient.

The vaccine stuff happens a lot:

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Also, when you say you are familiar with "ethical laws", what are those? There are state and federal laws (legal system) and then there are ethical guidelines (set forth by specialty bodies and medical organizations). Not following one gets you fined/jailed while not obeying the other gets you dirty looks, bad publicity, and maybe in extreme cases a revoked license.

You are right about having to give patients adequate notice and time when "firing" them so that they can find care elsewhere if they so choose. Otherwise it may be abandonment.

It's interesting stuff. Obviously you'd hope that most doctors would only resort to such measures as a last resort, but it's important to know the distinction between guideline and actual law. I also think it's funny how the "abortion scenario" is a classic interview dilemma that almost everyone gets asked eventually... because that's not real life. PCPs almost never perform abortions, but rather the moms-to-be-(not) go to abortion clinics or someplace where there won't be any objecting providers to begin with.

 

[MedPR]

Don't even need extenuating circumstances.

Docs "fire" patients all the time for not vaccinating their kids, not quitting smoking, being obese, no-showing for multiple appointments, etc. Not necessarily for these things themselves (aside from the no-show), but more because after countless conversations the "relationship" just isn't working out because the two parties aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

I have a personal acquaintance who is quite obese and this eventually led to chronic knee issues, including a couple of surgeries. Over and over again her doc emphasized that her weight was the source of the problems and until she lost significant poundage, everything he or the ortho specialists could do was merely a short-term solution. She didn't lose weight (just gained more) and kept hounding her physician over and over to "do something more". Eventually he just told her that he was sorry but he couldn't see her anymore until she had lost weight. Was quite sad since I saw all this from the "outside" as a friend of the patient.

The vaccine stuff happens a lot:

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Also, when you say you are familiar with "ethical laws", what are those? There are state and federal laws (legal system) and then there are ethical guidelines (set forth by specialty bodies and medical organizations). Not following one gets you fined/jailed while not obeying the other gets you dirty looks, bad publicity, and maybe in extreme cases a revoked license.

You are right about having to give patients adequate notice and time when "firing" them so that they can find care elsewhere if they so choose. Otherwise it may be abandonment.

It's interesting stuff. Obviously you'd hope that most doctors would only resort to such measures as a last resort, but it's important to know the distinction between guideline and actual law. I also think it's funny how the "abortion scenario" is a classic interview dilemma that almost everyone gets asked eventually... because that's not real life. PCPs almost never perform abortions, but rather the moms-to-be-(not) go to abortion clinics or someplace where there won't be any objecting providers to begin with.

Hi. Be my friend?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[deleted480308]

The correct answer is "but nephrologists don't perform abortions"...boom, winning

 

[DrSnips]

Physicians fire patients for things that arent so unusual. Should you? Well.... but CAN you? Yeah. The take home point is that there is just never a situation where a patient will have a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Never say never. Even though a patient never should be able to bring a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure, I'm sure I can think of one where they would likely win such a lawsuit.

Okay here goes. You are an OB/GYN and in your state the law has a strict cutoff for abortions at X weeks gestation. Patient at X-1 weeks comes to see you to get an abortion. You inform patient you do not perform abortions and would be happy to refer to a colleague. No colleague can see the patient and schedule an abortion before X weeks will have arrived. You still refuse to perform the procedure on ethical grounds. Patient performs her own abortion with non-sterile kitchen tools and ultimately develops sepsis and dies. Family sues the crap out of you.

You are telling me that judges will automatically throw this case out? Because I can imagine there must be a few that wouldn't, even if the law says that they have to. Then prepare for appeals and attorney's fees, even if you are in the right. The law is not designed to protect us, it is designed to protect patients. Sometimes to unreasonable degrees.

 

[NickNaylor]

Never say never. Even though a patient never should be able to bring a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure, I'm sure I can think of one where they would likely win such a lawsuit.

Okay here goes. You are an OB/GYN and in your state the law has a strict cutoff for abortions at X weeks gestation. Patient at X-1 weeks comes to see you to get an abortion. You inform patient you do not perform abortions and would be happy to refer to a colleague. No colleague can see the patient and schedule an abortion before X weeks will have arrived. You still refuse to perform the procedure on ethical grounds. Patient performs her own abortion with non-sterile kitchen tools and ultimately develops sepsis and dies. Family sues the crap out of you.

You are telling me that judges will automatically throw this case out? Because I can imagine there must be a few that wouldn't, even if the law says that they have to. Then prepare for appeals and attorney's fees, even if you are in the right. The law is not designed to protect us, it is designed to protect patients. Sometimes to unreasonable degrees.

That's more a symptom of our litigation-happy culture, not the actual merits of providing or not providing elective care. I don't see how you would possibly lose that lawsuit if it were to happen. Sure, you have to pay for attorney's fees (or, in theory, your malpractice would cover that), but that's a drop in the bucket compared to actually being successfully sued.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Never say never. Even though a patient never should be able to bring a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure, I'm sure I can think of one where they would likely win such a lawsuit.

Okay here goes. You are an OB/GYN and in your state the law has a strict cutoff for abortions at X weeks gestation. Patient at X-1 weeks comes to see you to get an abortion. You inform patient you do not perform abortions and would be happy to refer to a colleague. No colleague can see the patient and schedule an abortion before X weeks will have arrived. You still refuse to perform the procedure on ethical grounds. Patient performs her own abortion with non-sterile kitchen tools and ultimately develops sepsis and dies. Family sues the crap out of you.

You are telling me that judges will automatically throw this case out? Because I can imagine there must be a few that wouldn't, even if the law says that they have to. Then prepare for appeals and attorney's fees, even if you are in the right. The law is not designed to protect us, it is designed to protect patients. Sometimes to unreasonable degrees.

I understand the "never say never" rule, but strict adherence to that leaves me thumbing through a thesaurus over technicalities in speech That is actually why I said "wouldnt have a case" and not "wouldnt be able to sue" - because technically you can sue anyone over anything, and technically there is always potentially a judge out there who might screw you on it.

I understand what you are getting at with your example. However, IIRC abortions is one of those things in which there is precedent for physicians choosing what they want to do. You can't exactly hormonally induce an abortion when approaching anything we currently have as a cutoff date. Anyone performing abortions would need to be properly equipped (sterile coat hangers, blunt trauma expert sitting at the bottom of the stair, things like that). I'm not clear on what it takes to perform an abortion, although I am pretty sure you arent allowed to just do a c-section and let it die on the table with no care, so I am forced to assume that not every walk-in clinic has the capability. The "we dont do that here" excuse is perfectly valid . I could be wrong, but I think it is all kind of a moot point because as far as I am aware the right to choose to participate or not in such procedures is currently protected. The sh**storm that would ensue if a judge decided to hear such a case would be pretty dramatic.

You never know what a judge and jury are going to do, which is why IMO malpractice needs to be seriously revamped. I saw in the resident forums someone mentioning that expert witnessing should be considered within the scope of "practicing medicine" such that witnesses are held accountable for their testimony and arent just making bank by telling the jury what the plaintiff's attorney wants him to say. Sounds like a phenomenal idea to me. But even if a judge were to find you at fault there are plenty of processes for appeals. Most cases just settle because it is easier, but of those who settle it is still only a small fraction who would have lost to the patient if things had gone to trial. Personally I think any argument that implies that the physician is responsible for an activity that an adult patient performs on themselves is completely asinine, but it DOES happen in our system, mostly because we have a bunch of entitled mentally handicapped children disguised as adults in this country with a lawyer on speed dial... Ok.... now I am just ranting... This topic makes my blood boil 😳 I can't even remember what I was getting at... It is in there somewhere

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's more a symptom of our litigation-happy culture, not the actual merits of providing or not providing elective care. I don't see how you would possibly lose that lawsuit if it were to happen. Sure, you have to pay for attorney's fees (or, in theory, your malpractice would cover that), but that's a drop in the bucket compared to actually being successfully sued.

Remember the Hopkins $55million suit? I agree with him in the "never say never" thing if we are being overtly technical. For the sake of conversation and discussion we can get away from that, but IRL anything is possible.

 

[music2doc]

Never say never. Even though a patient never should be able to bring a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure, I'm sure I can think of one where they would likely win such a lawsuit.

Okay here goes. You are an OB/GYN and in your state the law has a strict cutoff for abortions at X weeks gestation. Patient at X-1 weeks comes to see you to get an abortion. You inform patient you do not perform abortions and would be happy to refer to a colleague. No colleague can see the patient and schedule an abortion before X weeks will have arrived. You still refuse to perform the procedure on ethical grounds. Patient performs her own abortion with non-sterile kitchen tools and ultimately develops sepsis and dies. Family sues the crap out of you.

You are telling me that judges will automatically throw this case out? Because I can imagine there must be a few that wouldn't, even if the law says that they have to. Then prepare for appeals and attorney's fees, even if you are in the right. The law is not designed to protect us, it is designed to protect patients. Sometimes to unreasonable degrees.

One could easily argue that in such a case, the OB/Gyn, having not performed an abortion since residency (say, 20 years ago, for instance) is not competent to perform the surgery. To do so would place the pt's life in danger in order to make her life more convenient. I would argue that nonmaleficence is the one ethical principle higher than pt autonomy. (This, in essence, is why euthanasia is still considered wrong.)

 

[SpecterGT260]

One could easily argue that in such a case, the OB/Gyn, having not performed an abortion since residency (say, 20 years ago, for instance) is not competent to perform the surgery. To do so would place the pt's life in danger in order to make her life more convenient. I would argue that nonmaleficence is the one ethical principle higher than pt autonomy. (This, in essence, is why euthanasia is still considered wrong.)

That is another thing I thought of, but I am not sure how that all works legally. You need to be minimally competent in order to retain a license. This would include the ability to perform all emergency procedures associated with your specialty. This wasnt exactly an emergency situation, but there was a deadline. Regardless, if such a procedure falls under the scope of "minimally competent" you cannot fall back on this excuse. Even though it WASNT an emergency, the argument will be made that had it been you would have been unable to perform the tast, and that your failure to keep up your skillset with what is required of you is still what resulted in the patients death.

It is kind of like booby-trap lawsuits. I have no specific examples, but something kind of like the Liar Liar example where they talk about the guy who breaks into a house and injures himself and then sues the homeowner for negligence. According to these cases the poor decision on the part of the "victim" does not cancel out the negligence and failure to meet responsibilities as a home owner.

 

[NickNaylor]

Remember the Hopkins $55million suit? I agree with him in the "never say never" thing if we are being overtly technical. For the sake of conversation and discussion we can get away from that, but IRL anything is possible.

Though I see your point, refusing to perform an non-indicated elective procedure and violating standards of care are two entirely different things. One is, at worst, ethically dubious. The other is legally wrong. I don't think the two are really even comparable beyond the fact that you can be threatened with litigation and might lose.

 

[DrSnips]

I understand the "never say never" rule, but strict adherence to that leaves me thumbing through a thesaurus over technicalities in speech That is actually why I said "wouldnt have a case" and not "wouldnt be able to sue" - because technically you can sue anyone over anything, and technically there is always potentially a judge out there who might screw you on it.

I understand what you are getting at with your example. However, IIRC abortions is one of those things in which there is precedent for physicians choosing what they want to do. You can't exactly hormonally induce an abortion when approaching anything we currently have as a cutoff date. Anyone performing abortions would need to be properly equipped (sterile coat hangers, blunt trauma expert sitting at the bottom of the stair, things like that). I'm not clear on what it takes to perform an abortion, although I am pretty sure you arent allowed to just do a c-section and let it die on the table with no care, so I am forced to assume that not every walk-in clinic has the capability. The "we dont do that here" excuse is perfectly valid . I could be wrong, but I think it is all kind of a moot point because as far as I am aware the right to choose to participate or not in such procedures is currently protected. The sh**storm that would ensue if a judge decided to hear such a case would be pretty dramatic.

You never know what a judge and jury are going to do, which is why IMO malpractice needs to be seriously revamped. I saw in the resident forums someone mentioning that expert witnessing should be considered within the scope of "practicing medicine" such that witnesses are held accountable for their testimony and arent just making bank by telling the jury what the plaintiff's attorney wants him to say. Sounds like a phenomenal idea to me. But even if a judge were to find you at fault there are plenty of processes for appeals. Most cases just settle because it is easier, but of those who settle it is still only a small fraction who would have lost to the patient if things had gone to trial. Personally I think any argument that implies that the physician is responsible for an activity that an adult patient performs on themselves is completely asinine, but it DOES happen in our system, mostly because we have a bunch of entitled mentally handicapped children disguised as adults in this country with a lawyer on speed dial... Ok.... now I am just ranting... This topic makes my blood boil 😳 I can't even remember what I was getting at... It is in there somewhere

I agree entirely about revamping malpractice. My point is just that under the current system, it is difficult to ever feel safe from litigation, even when the textbook answer for an ethics test question on your step exams says that you would be. Doctors do win the vast majority of cases that go to court. But most of the time they shouldn't even be there in the first place.

 

[MedPR]

Never say never. Even though a patient never should be able to bring a case against you for refusing to perform an elective procedure, I'm sure I can think of one where they would likely win such a lawsuit.

Okay here goes. You are an OB/GYN and in your state the law has a strict cutoff for abortions at X weeks gestation. Patient at X-1 weeks comes to see you to get an abortion. You inform patient you do not perform abortions and would be happy to refer to a colleague. No colleague can see the patient and schedule an abortion before X weeks will have arrived. You still refuse to perform the procedure on ethical grounds. Patient performs her own abortion with non-sterile kitchen tools and ultimately develops sepsis and dies. Family sues the crap out of you.

You are telling me that judges will automatically throw this case out? Because I can imagine there must be a few that wouldn't, even if the law says that they have to. Then prepare for appeals and attorney's fees, even if you are in the right. The law is not designed to protect us, it is designed to protect patients. Sometimes to unreasonable degrees.

Moral of the story? Don't be an obgyn.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[shinbeats]

Moral of the story? Don't be an obgyn.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

I pray that you become a obgyn doctor in a redneck county.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Though I see your point, refusing to perform an non-indicated elective procedure and violating standards of care are two entirely different things. One is, at worst, ethically dubious. The other is legally wrong. I don't think the two are really even comparable beyond the fact that you can be threatened with litigation and might lose.

My point was that the "standard of care" of often determined with hindsight by a jury of lay people. In the Hopkins case the jury was convinced that the standard of care was breached by the hospital and not the midwife with the suspended license who failed to recognize a complicated pregnancy until it was too late. It would be nice if determination of "standard of care" was as black and white as we like to act it is, but in truth it isnt. Many cases will have more to do with the emotional response of the jury than a critical evaluation of the care given. IMO that needs to change.

I agree entirely about revamping malpractice. My point is just that under the current system, it is difficult to ever feel safe from litigation, even when the textbook answer for an ethics test question on your step exams says that you would be. Doctors do win the vast majority of cases that go to court. But most of the time they shouldn't even be there in the first place.

I agree with you on this one. The unfortunate thing is that litigation leaves a lot of uncertainty until the ruling comes in. The system allows for bleeding hearts with utter and complete medical ignorance to weigh in in the same fashion as a trained medical expert.

And to the bold: yes 👍

 

[Barcu]

That is another thing I thought of, but I am not sure how that all works legally. You need to be minimally competent in order to retain a license. This would include the ability to perform all emergency procedures associated with your specialty.

Is this true for abortion and OB specifically? My impression is that OBs can practice without ever performing an abortion.

 

[sliceofbread136]

To all the people hating on malpractice lawsuits, how do you suggest we reform them?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Is this true for abortion and OB specifically? My impression is that OBs can practice without ever performing an abortion.

I have no idea. I just threw it out there as a possibility and kind of as a question, myself.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

To all the people hating on malpractice lawsuits, how do you suggest we reform them?

1) Expert witness testimony falls under the scope of "medical practice". Their testimony is subject to peer review and fraudulent testimony can constitute malpractice itself resulting in revocation of license or financial liability.

2) Committee review by a board of health administrators, practicing physicians, and lawyers instead of jury by peers. Im sorry, but Hank from the supermarket is not a "peer" to a hospital, and it is a little absurd to sue the individual anyways. The shotgun approach to litigation needs to stop

3) Personally, I'd like to see precedent set for counter-suits against patients filing frivolous lawsuits....but that is just my vindictive side.

4) Another one that I may be alone on - no more monetary payouts. Or at least capped beyond tangible losses and do away with "emotional suffering" payouts. I find them insulting... If you get bad service at a restaurant, do they hand you a check? No... you get free desert. Give free healthcare at the expense of the hospital, maybe. It isnt bulletproof, but IMO we need to reduce the number of people chasing after payouts in order to get to real instances of malpractice.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

So I had an interview that went something like this:

Interviewer: Can you think of any controversial topics because of morality/religion?
Me: Abortion
Interviewer: If you were morally against abortion and you had a patient request one, what would you do?
Me: blah blah blah Refer blah blah blah
Interviewer: They trust only you and refuse to see another doctor.
Me: blah blah blah That's their prerogative, but unless they are dying I will stand by my moral code. blah blah blah
Interviewer: Well it's against the law to refuse treatment and they can sue you if they find out you referred them because you didn't want to do the treatment.
Me: 😕


I know there are special laws that "protect" physicians/hospitals in cases of abortion, so that's not my question. My question is whether or not my interviewer is correct about non-abortion things. I thought physician's were only obligated to treat in emergent/life threatening situations..?

I dont know about the rules, but I was asked a similar question and I said I'm a pretty open minded person and different lifestyles and beliefs don't bother me. Id do what's best for the patient even if it was an abortion. Then they asked me what I thought about female circumcision. I was like, dafuq?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[Geebeejay]

I dont know about the rules, but I was asked a similar question and I said I'm a pretty open minded person and different lifestyles and beliefs don't bother me. Id do what's best for the patient even if it was an abortion. Then they asked me what I thought about female circumcision. I was like, dafuq?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

I think it's safe to say that female circumcision is not best for the patient

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think it's safe to say that female circumcision is not best for the patient

What if the patient wants it? (Ignore the ridiculousness of that statement and humor me😀) IMO same logic applies to the abortion in this case

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[487806]

This sounds odd, but why not suggest the opposite answer... that you will do abortions in first-term? This way, you can avoid the politics of refusing the abortion. In practice, just avoid being an OB/GYN.

 

[cinamin]

I dont know about the rules, but I was asked a similar question and I said I'm a pretty open minded person and different lifestyles and beliefs don't bother me. Id do what's best for the patient even if it was an abortion.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Bam. I think this answer is the 'safe' and 'noncontroversial' answer... sometimes in interviews it is best to go this route, especially when it comes to religion/money/politics/race, etc. IMO.

But I feel for you MedPR. Of course you were given the scenario of 'being against abortions' so you were thinking from that perspective, it was a tricky one... being able to spin it to say that you put medicine and patient care above your personal biases might have been a better way to go. I don't know if the interviewer's response is valid or not, and I wouldn't take what he/she said literally other than interpret it is he/she simply didn't agree with you. But everyone has a right to their opinion and you shouldn't feel bad about it. Maybe you got WL'd because of the stats? I think you will move off these waitlists come the spring, you seem to have everything other than the cgpa going for you so hang in there!

 

[NickNaylor]

My point was that the "standard of care" of often determined with hindsight by a jury of lay people. In the Hopkins case the jury was convinced that the standard of care was breached by the hospital and not the midwife with the suspended license who failed to recognize a complicated pregnancy until it was too late. It would be nice if determination of "standard of care" was as black and white as we like to act it is, but in truth it isnt. Many cases will have more to do with the emotional response of the jury than a critical evaluation of the care given. IMO that needs to change.

Nice, interesting - I remember hearing about the case but totally forgot about the whole midwife-being-a-****-up thing.

 

[laricb]

So I had an interview that went something like this:

Interviewer: Can you think of any controversial topics because of morality/religion?
Me: Abortion
Interviewer: If you were morally against abortion and you had a patient request one, what would you do?
Me: blah blah blah Refer blah blah blah
Interviewer: They trust only you and refuse to see another doctor.
Me: blah blah blah That's their prerogative, but unless they are dying I will stand by my moral code. blah blah blah
Interviewer: Well it's against the law to refuse treatment and they can sue you if they find out you referred them because you didn't want to do the treatment.
Me: 😕


I know there are special laws that "protect" physicians/hospitals in cases of abortion, so that's not my question. My question is whether or not my interviewer is correct about non-abortion things. I thought physician's were only obligated to treat in emergent/life threatening situations..?

Your an idiot. It was an interview, tell him what he wants to hear. What did your moral code get you. A big fat rejection.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Your an idiot. It was an interview, tell him what he wants to hear. What did your moral code get you. A big fat rejection.

You're*
🙄

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[487806]

You're*
🙄

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Their is a fact in his words, tho.

Your an idiot. It was an interview, tell him what he wants to hear. What did your moral code get you. A big fat rejection.

You never fail to amaze me.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

Your an idiot. It was an interview, tell him what he wants to hear. What did your moral code get you. A big fat rejection.

Actually it was a waitlist. And contrary to SDN opinion, getting waitlisted generally means that your interview DID go well but that some other part of your application wasn't quite as good as the other accepted applicants. There are a few schools that waitlist or accept everyone who interviews, but I think the majority flat-out reject anyone who has a truly bad interview.

 

[laricb]

Actually it was a waitlist. And contrary to SDN opinion, getting waitlisted generally means that your interview DID go well but that some other part of your application wasn't quite as good as the other accepted applicants. There are a few schools that waitlist or accept everyone who interviews, but I think the majority flat-out reject anyone who has a truly bad interview.

I don't care what SDN has to say. It didn't help your situation..

 

[SpecterGT260]

Their is a fact in his words, tho.



You never fail to amaze me.

Two tru


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[487806]

I don't care what SDN has to say. It didn't help your situation..

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't care what SDN has to say. It didn't help your situation..

I suspect you have no idea what the right answer actually was. Awkward happenings in the interview is not a kiss of death. Many interviewers will keep pushing until it gets weird or you get uncomfortable just to see how you handle it

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[PikminOC]

1) Expert witness testimony falls under the scope of "medical practice". Their testimony is subject to peer review and fraudulent testimony can constitute malpractice itself resulting in revocation of license or financial liability.

2) Committee review by a board of health administrators, practicing physicians, and lawyers instead of jury by peers. Im sorry, but Hank from the supermarket is not a "peer" to a hospital, and it is a little absurd to sue the individual anyways. The shotgun approach to litigation needs to stop

3) Personally, I'd like to see precedent set for counter-suits against patients filing frivolous lawsuits....but that is just my vindictive side.

4) Another one that I may be alone on - no more monetary payouts. Or at least capped beyond tangible losses and do away with "emotional suffering" payouts. I find them insulting... If you get bad service at a restaurant, do they hand you a check? No... you get free desert. Give free healthcare at the expense of the hospital, maybe. It isnt bulletproof, but IMO we need to reduce the number of people chasing after payouts in order to get to real instances of malpractice.

👍

 

[laricb]

No, I am actually happy feel sorry for her screw up.