Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Political Correctness Over-reach in the Exam Room

A general surgeon in Florida evaluated a patient for hernia repair. The patient confided he was HIV positive. The surgeon asked about the patient’s medication regimen. The patient explained that on the medication his viral titers were non-detectable.

The surgeon stated that that was good for both of them. For the patient, of course. And for the doctor, should he be accidentally stuck with a needle during the case.

The patient went home and sent the doctor a note stating his comment was offensive and discriminatory. He was thinking of filing a complaint with the Medical Board and the federal agency that oversees complaints related to the American with Disabilities Act. And the cherry on the sundae. He was speaking to an attorney.

The surgeon wrote back calmly. He reminded the patient that he had always ready, willing, and able to perform the hernia repair. Nothing about the patient’s condition gave him pause. Indeed, he thought the patient was ready to schedule the case.

The surgeon apologized if his comment had been construed as anything offensive and was prepared to discount his professional fee by 25% as an act of good will.

The patient responded he wanted the whole procedure performed gratis. This included not just the surgeon’s fee. But also the anesthesiologist’s fee and the surgi-center fee.

Whoa.

Let’s deconstruct this.

The surgeon did nothing that violated the law. He did not violate any professional norms. At no time did he suggest he would not treat the patient. And he did not say he would treat this patient any differently than any other patient – whether or not such a patient was HIV positive.

He made a single statement that was true. If a surgeon accidentally sticks himself with a needle and the patient’s HIV viral titers are high, the likelihood of transmission is higher than if viral titers are non-detectable. The surgeon was stating the patient’s situation was good – for the patient – AND the surgeon.

The surgeon was also being a nice guy – offering good will to a patient. Apparently, that was not enough. The patient wanted everything done for free.

The patient seemed to think the surgeon was vulnerable to a host of administrative complaints and litigation. This says more about the patient than the surgeon. While the patient may trigger any number of actions, I doubt they will go anywhere. If the patient were smart, he’d graciously accept the surgeon’s bona fide offer of good will and move on.

  •  
    3
    Shares
  • 3
  •  
  •  

About the Author:

Helping patients find the best doctors online. Helping the best doctors be found online. At eMerit®, we focus on managing your Dental or Medical Identity toward a sustainable and growing business – where both doctors and patients thrive. And we minimize distractions away from patient care while meeting your business objectives by transforming everyday patient interactions into growth drivers. At eMerit, we take your Medical Identity® personally.

17
Leave a Reply

17Comment threads
0Thread replies
0Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Don callan

Some patients are always looking to get something for free, tell the patient to go to HELL!!

RetiredMD

Document the encounter thoroughly, preserve the letter to the patient, prepare for defense in front of the medical board and the inevitable malpractice case. Nothing done wrong, but in today’s hyper PC environment this will turn into a mess. The surgeon should absolutely not do the surgery, now. This patient now sees him as target for manipulation. This is no longer a doctor patient relationship and the patient is trying to exploit the surgeon. Even if the surgery were done for free the patient will find fault with it and will sue. The patient will also try to destroy the… Read more »

Danne Lorieo, MD

The only thing the surgeon did was offer to discount his fee. This was a sign of weakness and made the patient think that the surgeon thought he had done something wrong. He did not. He only stated a fact as it pertained to the patient’s state of health and the risk facts of life as they pertain to taking care of patients.He should have nothing more to do with this patient and warn his colleagues should they enquire.

Can the surgeon sue the patient for extortion?

He should have never in a hundred years offered to discount
but rather stated that while he was ready willing and able to perform the surgery,
that due to the contentious nature of the letter, he was withdrawing from further care.
The surgeon was a pussy and the patient was a dick!

Michael Longley

The surgeon should have immediately refused to do the surgery. Discounting his fee was crazy – once you bend over once you will just keep on bending over. A wise surgeon will immediately fire such a surgeon without delay.

Andrea J Barrett

I am tempted to agree that the patient should be fired because he is litigious even before the surgery. However, right or wrong, if the patient is fired might he have more discrimination amunition? He may be exhonorated in the end but getting sued sucks! Even if you win.

Joe Horton MD

Nah. How the surgeon phrases it makes it good or bad. If he says that the tension that has arisen makes him incapable of being safe and effective, he’s in solid ground: he doesn’t want to jeopardize the patient unnecessarily. If he does much else, he’s hitting the tar baby. If the patient responds that the surgeon is now discriminating against him, he–the patient–is on perilously thin ice, and if he pursues, is opening himself up to countersuit and an harassment claim.

Only one side of this wants to continue the doctor-plaintiff relationship.

I agree with the previous comments that fee discount indicated in some form acceptance of guilt and gave patient grounds to believe that there is merit to complaint. However, the more interesting question is what the doctor was exactly offering. I presume, it was an insurance case. Reducing the fee by 25% will reduce overall reimbursement but most likely it will not affect the patient responsibility very much. Another question is whether to proceed with surgery altogether. The cornerstone of every surgery is doctor-patient relationship, which had been effectively destroyed. Not performing the surgery will potentially subject the physician to… Read more »

Interesting case

R Sterling

Presumptions of malice, real or imagined, are ruining relationships of every kind, at every level of contemporary society.

NY Surgeon

Just another example of perverted political correctness and how it has polluted our lives.
I can’t stand it anymore. I would not have lowered my fee and in fact would have released the patient with the understanding that the doctor patient relationship was violated

Anon

This patient is a schmuck, and should be fired from the practice. It would be malpractice NOT to request viral titers preoperatively, along with ID clearance. I have stuck myself adjusting the suture needle on an HIV+ patient with an undetectable viral load, and I took prophylaxis for a month. Thankfully it didn’t come to anything for yours truly, but it was on the back burner of my brain for a year till titers were negative. Thank you.

Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM

Anon (correctly) points out that operating HIV+ patients is still a risk for surgeons. Nothing in liberal, politically correct mantra will change that. All of us have operated HIV+ patients whether we knew about it or not. I think that the patient felt “guilty” about his disease and the very real risk its presence puts on surgeons. Amateur psychology on my part suggest that he is “transferring” his anger back against the surgeon. There is always a real risk associated with any complaint against you crossing your State Medical Board. Malpractice is by comparison much less risky. This patient needs… Read more »

Brian

Is HIV status a protected class? Do we have any say on whom we operate? What if I just don’t like the patient? Can any patient demand that we operate on them? Seems like we are becoming indentured servants with no real choice.

Carla H Schlissel, DDS

Yes, HIV is a “protected class” of patient. You can dismiss an HIV positive patient, but not because they are HIV positive. Personality conflict is a valid reason. Non-payment of fee is another. “I’m referring you to someone who could handle your case more competently” is grounds for a lawsuit. I grant you, the Doctor made a comment that I, personally, wouldn’t consider making unless I knew that patient fairly well. Otherwise you risk irritating a patient who may have a “bug up his butt.” That patient didn’t take his offer of a discount as a sign of weakness to… Read more »

Dr. MW , MD, CPE

I don’t know how many docs have actually spoken with or met Dr. Segal. If you get a chance, I hope you meet him. He, eMerit, medicaljustice.com.,and the staff are amazing. If you are NOT affiliated with or a member of medicaljustice.com , eMerit etc, I encourage you to request a conversation with Dr. Segal. Sure he can’t answer a thousand calls a day, but he sure and the heck tries. I have never met someone so passionate and enthusiastic about this “Cause!” We, as physicians/healthcare providers /dentists…. we HAVE to grow some balls and be proud of our Ovaries,… Read more »