WebMD Community Talk Show

Hello Olivia,

I was lucky, I had the best pediatricians in the world!(maybe half of the world) They were a husband and wife team. They would never fire me, because they weren't my doctor's. They were my children's doctor's, and they loved all of there little patient's.

Doctor's should be able to fire anybody, just like any other boss. Would you want them to be your doctor, if they didn't want to be? I wouldn't.

Luke

I have seen this all the time where I live is a retirement community if one of my residents don't agree with their doctor's opinion they will seek another. However when the main doc finds out he will drop them as a patent if he was not involved in the second doctor's referral..

Oh yes, people can refuse vaccinations. They can be (as another poster put it so correctly) poisoned with information online about the EVIL TOXINS in vaccinations. Like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

If the ONLY reason the doctor gave for discharging a patient was the non-vaccination, I would probably object but I'll bet it's not the only reason. Especially if there were legitimate allergies; I mean, doctors' know there are some people who can't take them. I highly doubt they are discharged from the practice. It must be more.

But then again, some doctors will discharge you for any reason. My GE discharged me because I wanted a second opinion on his Crohn's Disease dx. He point-blank called me an idiot for doing that but that "it wasn't hurting him financially so go ahead." The 2nd GE said there was no trace of Crohn's/Colitis on my tests so I could stop that line of medication.

Then again, I work for an insurance company and I hear both sides of the story for discharges. Many times patients say they were kicked for simply not agreeing to a line of treatment when the records say it was because they were consistently argumentative, rude to staff and insulting to other patients in the waiting room.

The patient of a pediatrician is not the parents...it's the child of the parents.

Parents who stand in the way of a pediatrician protecting their patient present a clear and present danger, not only to their own children, but other kids that frequent the practice, too.

Thus, they have the "talk" to allay parental fears..."Please understand. You are putting my practice and the health of my other patients at risk. I am held to established standards of medical practice and if I deviate from these standards I can lose my license to practice...Jenny McCarthy is a DD, not a MD."

Any business person has a right to protect himself/herself from potential litigation and claims of malpractice. If a parent insists on exposing his customer to harm and disregards the safety of other customers, what other choice is left?

"No soup for you!"

Sounds harsh but, trust me, these parents were warned...

Yes, it is fair and prudent for a physican to "fire" a patient when the patient/parent/guardian refuses treatment that could potentially increase the physician's liability in the event of an adverse event. Or if the patient and physician have differences in ideology or theories of safe medical treatment. If a person is fired from a practice, or "fires" a physician, then a practitioner that agrees with the person's beliefs/ideals. With the litigenous society the medical prfession is unfortunately facing, that possibility must be considered in treatment of patients. The times have I have known of patients being fired from a practice, they were given adequate notice to obtain another physician and offered emergency care for 30 days to allow time for another relationship to be estabished.
I'll get off my soapbox now. No, I am not a physician.. But I have seen too much of the effect of disatisfied patients on competent physicains. Thank you.

They don't have to be. Patients have as much right to fire a physician as physician a to fire a patient. And the patient/parent is not required to give notice as a physician is.
The "forcing" is due in part to the public's expectation of a "magic" medicine or treatment. The public is welcome to find a practioner of whatever type they are comfortble with.

And the patient should fire the doctor if there is no common ground or compromise on either part. No physician wantso someone that is likey to put their practice/license in jeopardy.
Fire away if you are unable to reach a treatment plan agreement with a medical practioner of any type. With, I am sure, the providers blessing.

I work in health care and completly agree with this when it happens. It's not only pediatricians who 'fire' their patients. But on the kid note, if the parents have a complete disriguard for the advice and care from the physican why keep going to them in the first place? It's the providers goal to ensure the patient is getting the best care, treatment, preventative care they can and when parents don't listen the goodbye it is. It's just like with adults, why should a provider have to spend x amount of time usually multiple encounters a month on patients who want the magic pill or magic cure but are unwilling to listen and do what they need to do? Firing of patients happens and sometimes it should happen more often

I believe most provider DO work with people and do their best to address fears, concerns, and to educate. However, there are times when no treatment plan agreement can be reached. At that point, the relationship should be ended by one party or the other.

I don't think a doctor should be able to "fire" a patient if they opt not to have their child immunized for a couple different reasons.

It is a doctor's job to treat patients to the best of their ability, as stated by 3point14. If a parent or patient doesn't have immunizations done, that's their prerogative. It's still the physicians' jobs to treat patients. If I opt not to have my son receive a flu shot, why would a doctor not treat him if he came down with an ear infection? It would be like a mechanic refusing to replace a burned out fuse because you chose not to change the oil- is it not his job to keep your car running to the best of his ability?

What about children who refuse to get shots? Quite a while ago, I told Dr Moser about my son's refusing his flu shot. The only way I was able to get him to take the shot is to get a placebo shot to show it doesn't hurt (I had already received my flu shot). What if I refused to receive a placebo inoculation? Or hadn't thought of the idea?

I think it's the patient who should reserve the right to "fire" the MD.A doctor didn't hire me as a patient.The one who "hire"s has the right to do the firing.
On the other hand; a doctor can say he/she does not have any more treatments for that patient "under the circumstance"(i.e. patient's refusal to go along with MD's treatment plan)

I think it is important to remember that there are over 200,000 iatrogenic illnesses in this country every year. That is illnesses caused by someone in the medical profession. Of these illnesses, there are over 100,000 deaths. Deaths caused by bad medical advice, wrong prescriptions, botched surgeries are a leading cause of death after heart attack and cancer. So if there is something a doctor insists on he could be right or he could be one of those causing all those iatrogenic illnesses.

When I had my third baby I insisted on signing myself out of the hospital after only 14 hours. The doctor had a fit and had me sign a paper absolving him and the hospital of any consequences of my leaving the hospital early. I had no problem signing this., recovered faster at home than I did in the hospital with the first two, and continued with these doctors for the next three babies. I was shocked when my daughter had her baby that she had to leave the hospital after less than 24 hours. Nowadays that is all they will allow you to stay. I was ahead of my time!! So, apparently, according to current practice, I was right and my doctor was wrong.

If it is in the record that a doctor recommended a treatment and the patient refused, then he would not be responsible for any ill effects. It is my body and I might not want to undergo surgery or risk side effects of a drug etc. If doctors were omniscient there would not be iatrogenic illnesses or malpractice suits. To say you must unquestioningly follow his advice is to claim that he is unfailingly right one hundred per cent of the time. Is there anyone in the world of any profession whatsoever who can claim that level of perfection?

Doctors have patients who are smokers. I am sure that he would advise such a patient to quit smoking. Or who are drinkers. Or overweight. Or who take the pills he prescribes for diabetes but do nothing about diet or exercise. If a doctor fired everyone who didn't take his advice, then he wouldn't be driving around in that beemer you see him driving.

Dolores

Smokers, drinkers and diabetics, generally, don't place other kids at risk while they sit in doctor's waiting room.

Kid's who have been denied a DTaP, Hib or Rotavirus shot? They put both kids and adults at risk with a single cough or sneeze.

There is no federal law but all states require some vaccinations before a child can enter school. I do not know if there are any exceptions or if this applies to all home schoolers. I think it might because as part of the process of having their education programs reviewed by the state my daughter had to have proof of vaccinations for her homeschooled children.

If there are a group of kids who are not getting vaccinations because their parents deem them dangerous, then they would be infecting each other since just about everyone is vaccinated for various illnesses. (I was just reading that for various reasons, children lose their immunity after several years but no one has ever asked my children or my grandchildren for blood titres so there may be people who can contract or spread illness without knowing they are not immune.)

The point I was trying to make about smokers, drinkers and diabetics who don't follow a reasonable diet and exercise plan is that I never heard of a doctor who wouldn't tell a drunk or a smoker to quit or give a diet plan to a diabetic. Yet when it is obvious these patients are not complying with his advice, he does not fire them but continues to treat. So it is obvious that a Dr. who fires a patient is picking and choosing which non compliant patients he refuses to treat. While it is perfectly clear what will happen to smokers, drunks and lazy diabetics, what will happen if you don't have a particular test, submit to surgery or take a certain drug is a lot less clear. So until Dr.s start firing smokers and drinkers and lazy people, they should not fire someone who might not take their advice on other matters. A simple form absolving a doctor of any ill effects from non compliance is easy to keep around the office.

Bye the way, I have never had a doctor tell me about side effects of any drug he has prescribed but I always look them up. Pharmacies now give this information with each prescription but for many many years they did not. One doctor prescribed an antibiotic which should not be used by diabetics. When I called and asked for a different drug she said no one every complained before. So?

Dolores

The only problem is the non compliant pts will initiate lawsuits for bad outcomes. Doctor's are very defensive at times for this reason.