BBM. Agreed! Except.......it isn't that simple, unfortunately.
I agree, we should all do our due diligence, as ,uch as possible, when we choose our health care providers. But more and more, patients are less able to control who that person is, or will be, when a medical situation occurs, electively or urgently. And with the new Obamacare consequences, choice will become more and more limited in some rural geographic areas. We already have geographic mandatory service areas carved out, and some insurers pulling out of some areas, leaving very limited choice of providers.
Its really sad for me to think we may actually have to come to a place in health care where individual providers may have to disclose their political and religious beliefs to their community and patients, just a politicians do now. Merely discussing with your provider what their end of life, or religious/ moral/ ethical/ political views are is really not enough. What about emergencies? On call situations? Lack of other available providers to switch to, if the one in front of you doesnt share your beliefs?
Reference my post earlier in the thread (Ill find it and add it in to this post) about women who thoroughly discussed their choice of having a tubal ligation following the birth of their child, cleared this with their insurance provider (Medicaid, in most all of these circumstances I have been involved in) and then were faced with a different doc on call who does not agree with ANY woman having a tubal, at the very time when they are being prepped for a semi-urgent (not life threatening) c-section. That is a vulnerable woman who made her wishes known well in advance, her insurance company agreed, she had informed consent, and simply because a pro life doc is on call, she is forced to have another hospitalization at another time, with more cost to her and the insurance company, and more risk from another more complicated surgical procedure, another anesthetic, and the loss of time from work (for most women, very low paying jobs, who have, multiple children, and are single parents). This is obviously not an end of life situation, but a clear example of patients held hostage to the religious/ ethical/ moral beliefs of the ONLY provider available. That in itself is unethical, IMO, especially when this provider's beliefs are at odds with 99.99999% of practicing providers in that specialty.
No patient should be held hostage to the religious and political beliefs of their doctor or health care providerthat is absurd in the extreme. But it does happen. And many time the ones held captive to the beliefs of the doctor or provider are vulnerable themselves, by educational inequality, intellectual inequality, socioeconomic status, personality, sickness, stress, debilitation, altered level of consciousness. It is an inherently unequal power positionsick people seeking health care, and the powerful and knowledgable healthcare providers. The last thing patients should have to be worried about when faced with important health care decisions, is what are the religious beliefs, political affiliation, and moral and ethical persuasions of this provider, and will my wishes be honored? Its very sad and disturbing that we have come to this.
Im picturing something like a political score card being posted in waiting rooms and local newspapers, like those who are running for office. Do we make all health care providers fill out a detailed religious/ethical/ political position questionnaire, and make the results public? Dr. XYZ, followed by letters indicating their religious affiliation, political party, and whether they will follow end of life directives, and whether they are pro choice or pro life, etc. Imagine how ridiculous that would be? Should we have all health care providers wear color coded stickers on their name tags, so everyone knows at a glance without asking what their political and religious positions are? Where does it end?
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - With pregnant wife unresponsive on life support, husband hopes to fulfill her wishes
