Poll- To whom does the practioner owe deference, the patient or state?

[Hayabusa Rider]

When there is a conflict between regulation and the health of a patient, which takes precedence? Note that I am not talking about harming another to do so nor committing theft nor any act of violence.

This is a public poll.

 

[Anarchist420]

im actually going through misery right now because i cant get into see a new nurse practitioner for a prescription for more than a week. and the reason im going to a new one is partly because the psychiatrist i was going to would drug test me for stimulants and my dad (a family practitioner, not a psychiatrist) said that the State board doesnt require drug tests for stimulants, but that doctors receive some kind of promotion from the State board of medicine if they do drug test... it's nothing but fascism.

then for utilitarians who ignore the ethics of liberty argument... there is no way society could be made safer overall by having things not over the counter.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the patient needs a month of care in the hospital but no one is going to pay for it - wouldn't they be kicked out, State mandate or not?

 

[theeedude]

The patient, within bounds of the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The patient, within bounds of the law.

Then you say the state, because if a regulation is violated whatever it is then that is outside the bounds of the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bump.

One would think that this should bear thinking about since it's timely and relevant, but few seem to want to opine.

 

[Paratus]

Health and welfare of the patient first, state laws second.

In general laws should dovetail with patient health and those that don't should be overturned.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think you're getting many responses because both sides believe it's the patient. It's just that the left feels the state is so much smarter they need to tell health care providers exactly how to best do that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think you're getting many responses because both sides believe it's the patient. It's just that the left feels the state is so much smarter they need to tell health care providers exactly how to best do that.

There's a lot of talk about such things as UHC. That would be a government entity whether farmed out or not. Currently there are regulations which harm patients for no real benefit. Expanding control means more instances unless it's believed that somehow this will magically go away. I had hoped to start a discussion with supporters about such things, gwtting a sense of expectations from providers and government regarding actual care, not coverage. I suppose I should have sensationalized.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think you're getting many responses because both sides believe it's the patient. It's just that the left feels the state is so much smarter they need to tell health care providers exactly how to best do that.

In your mind just how scary and sinister is the left? When you think of a liberal is this the picture you have in mind:

Do you wet the bed at night when you have your scary dreams about the left?


Well let me help you with your affliction, the left you think exists doesn't, it's something you made up, it's how you justify your insane ideas. It's a boogeyman and it's not real.

 

[PokerGuy]

Most on the left think the government is the wonderful end all be all, and the needs of the state clearly are more important than those of the serfs. To them the obvious answer is "the state". For me, welfare of the patient is the #1 concern.

 

[yllus]

Health and welfare of the patient first, state laws second.

In general laws should dovetail with patient health and those that don't should be overturned.

I don't know if that makes sense in real world scenarios. Are we saying that there are cases in which the health of a patient can be positively affected, but state laws prevent it from occurring?

I'll try to create an example case based on something Hayabusa Rider has mentioned in the past: A patient comes into a hospital or doctor's office and urgently needs a refill of a medication that is a very restricted substance. The doctor has it on hand, but state law tells him/her that it cannot be given to her without prior authorization of some board. Should he/she give it to the patient anyways?

So on the one hand, we could give the patient the relief they need. On the other, we would open up the process to abuse.

I think the only reasonable answer to the question asked in this poll is the state, but there must be a distinction made: If laws have moved into a direction where regular health care has become difficult to dispense due to legal nonsense, then that need to be addressed. But an overall rule that doctors can just do as they please based on the patient in front of them - that can't realistically be the rule we live by.

 

[rudder]

The state. The doctor can only be a doctor because of a license. Without that the doctor is practicing medicine illegally. Don't think the state won't use that to get doctors to think about the state first and the patient second.

 

[Oldgamer]

Now adays many physicians are all about the money and not about patient care. Many violate the Hippocratic Oath now. It should always be patient first in my opinion.

 

[Zargon]

^^ that

 

[werepossum]

In your mind just how scary and sinister is the left? When you think of a liberal is this the picture you have in mind:

Do you wet the bed at night when you have your scary dreams about the left?


Well let me help you with your affliction, the left you think exists doesn't, it's something you made up, it's how you justify your insane ideas. It's a boogeyman and it's not real.

Sweet Lord, no! The left would have nothing to do with anything so irresponsibly deadly as an individual with a big, heavy stick, preferring to empower Government to protect them from people with big, heavy sticks. And of course, also to protect them from having to be responsible for their own health care, day care, food choices, education, Internet access, cell phones, wage negotiation . . .

 

[werepossum]

I don't know if that makes sense in real world scenarios. Are we saying that there are cases in which the health of a patient can be positively affected, but state laws prevent it from occurring?

I'll try to create an example case based on something Hayabusa Rider has mentioned in the past: A patient comes into a hospital or doctor's office and urgently needs a refill of a medication that is a very restricted substance. The doctor has it on hand, but state law tells him/her that it cannot be given to her without prior authorization of some board. Should he/she give it to the patient anyways?

So on the one hand, we could give the patient the relief they need. On the other, we would open up the process to abuse.

I think the only reasonable answer to the question asked in this poll is the state, but there must be a distinction made: If laws have moved into a direction where regular health care has become difficult to dispense due to legal nonsense, then that need to be addressed. But an overall rule that doctors can just do as they please based on the patient in front of them - that can't realistically be the rule we live by.

Many of us have the insane idea that the state prohibiting a doctor from giving a patient a medication she needs IS abuse. Weird, huh?

I would have bet money that no one would actually admit to believing that health care providers should defer to the state over the patient. Looks as though I was wrong.

 

[yllus]

Many of us have the insane idea that the state prohibiting a doctor from giving a patient a medication she needs IS abuse. Weird, huh?

It's really easy to grab pom-poms and be an anti-government cheerleader when everything is hypothetical. It's a lot harder in the real world where it's not so clear what the proper route of treatment is. You have to lean on the body of work and rules set by others when real complexity comes into play.

I think that the drug restrictions that have come into effect in most of the world are overzealous, but this is the usual throwing the baby out with the bathwater Internet discussion board behaviour. Most doctors think that hysterectomies to cure stress is quack science and should be banned, but one guy thinks it should work. His barely literate patient just wants it to stop. I guess we should let him at it?

 

[boomerang]

In the world of old, the patient would come first. But now, we have the state and their lawyers involved. So the practitioner is in a pickle. Put the patient first and incur the wrath of the state. Put the state first and incur the wrath of the state. Why? Because the state will not admit their error and will pin the blame on the practitioner when the shit hits the fan.

60% of Americans feel the government has too much power.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164591/americans-belief-gov-powerful-record-level.aspx

 

[Oldgamer]

In the world of old, the patient would come first. But now, we have the state and their lawyers involved. So the practitioner is in a pickle. Put the patient first and incur the wrath of the state. Put the state first and incur the wrath of the state. Why? Because the state will not admit their error and will pin the blame on the practitioner when the shit hits the fan.

60% of Americans feel the government has too much power.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164591/americans-belief-gov-powerful-record-level.aspx

This is true, and a good example of this is what is happening to chronic pain patients in this country.

 

[dank69]

It's really easy to grab pom-poms and be an anti-government cheerleader when everything is hypothetical. It's a lot harder in the real world where it's not so clear what the proper route of treatment is. You have to lean on the body of work and rules set by others when real complexity comes into play.

I think that the drug restrictions that have come into effect in most of the world are overzealous, but this is the usual throwing the baby out with the bathwater Internet discussion board behaviour. Most doctors think that hysterectomies to cure stress is quack science and should be banned, but one guy thinks it should work. His barely literate patient just wants it to stop. I guess we should let him at it?

This is the correct answer. There are probably cases where the state does harm and cases where the state does good. My initial knee-jerk reaction would have been to vote for patient on the poll but after thinking about it for two seconds I remembered that doctors aren't gods any more than cops are. They can be misinformed.

However, the poll is framed as "where does the loyalty lie" and as such I am voting for the patient. The doctor should always be working for the patient's best interests. If regulation is preventing the doctor from doing so then the regulation should be examined and changed.

 

[monovillage]

This is true, and a good example of this is what is happening to chronic pain patients in this country.

Yes, the Food and Drug administration along with the DEA are protecting us from the evils of pain relief, soon to save us from the evils of trans fats. Big authoritarian nanny government at it's finest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't know if that makes sense in real world scenarios. Are we saying that there are cases in which the health of a patient can be positively affected, but state laws prevent it from occurring?

I'll try to create an example case based on something Hayabusa Rider has mentioned in the past: A patient comes into a hospital or doctor's office and urgently needs a refill of a medication that is a very restricted substance. The doctor has it on hand, but state law tells him/her that it cannot be given to her without prior authorization of some board. Should he/she give it to the patient anyways?

So on the one hand, we could give the patient the relief they need. On the other, we would open up the process to abuse.

I think the only reasonable answer to the question asked in this poll is the state, but there must be a distinction made: If laws have moved into a direction where regular health care has become difficult to dispense due to legal nonsense, then that need to be addressed. But an overall rule that doctors can just do as they please based on the patient in front of them - that can't realistically be the rule we live by.

Point of clarification. By "state" I mean government. I now have three shut ins who do not have their diabetic testing supplies and it is now a violation of federal law to bring them to the patients. That's insane and a punishable offense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now adays many physicians are all about the money and not about patient care. Many violate the Hippocratic Oath now. It should always be patient first in my opinion.

Many like me are not allowed to do what is right C/O regulations. We're more honest than those many want to take charge, nevertheless I agree, the patient ought to come first. What happens if it's proper but illegal?

 

[dank69]

Point of clarification. By "state" I mean government. I now have three shut ins who do not have their diabetic testing supplies and it is now a violation of federal law to bring them to the patients. That's insane and a punishable offense.

You can't mail them?