enthalpy

Monday, June 14, 2004


Personally, I don't see the big deal here. The doctors have excluded cases of emergency, right? Lawyers get to pick their clients, right? Why should doctors have to treat these blood-suckers if they are destroying their practice?
A doctor's proposal asking the American Medical Association to endorse refusing care to attorneys involved in medical malpractice cases drew an angry response from colleagues Sunday at the annual meeting of the nation's largest physicians group.

Many doctors stood up to denounce the resolution in passionate speeches - even after its sponsor, Dr. J. Chris Hawk, asked that it be withdrawn.

Hawk, a South Carolina surgeon, said he made the proposal to draw attention to rising medical malpractice costs. The resolution asks that the AMA tell doctors that - except in emergencies - it is not unethical to refuse care to plaintiffs' attorneys and their spouses.
What's more tragic? An attorney's family that has to pay more to see a physician, or an entire community deprived of medical care because the cost of malpractice insurance? It's not like they're without options? They just might have to *gasp* pay a higher price for healthcare. It's about damn time, and I wish every physician in the country would follow their lead.

I've never seen a commercial on TV from a doctor's office looking for someone that was bleeding.



Home