Do doctors maintain the right to refuse service to their “customers”, or patients, like other professionals, or does being a doctor mean that they are obliged to treat one and all? This is one of the main topics of discussion in Sandeep Jauhar’s essay, “When Doctor’s [sic] Slam the Door,” on The New York Times website. It is an extremely important issue as it toys with many people’s preconceived notions of doctors playing the role of God and being these otherworldly beings who have a duty to save lives. However, what remains on debatable grounds is what roles doctors assume as they refuse to treat patients. This paper will explore the views of a small sample of college freshmen about this sensitive topic and try to figure out why the debate
…show more content…
While most students agree that it is up to the patient to maintain a somewhat healthy lifestyle that negates the needs of surgery in the first place, if by chance they do require medical procedures, most students believe that the individual doctors themselves do not preserve the right to deny them that option. Students F, I and J even mention the Hippocratic Oath to emphasize the fact that doctors have a duty to their patients and cannot just refuse treatment, especially if the patient could be better off with it. On the other hand, students D and M seem to think that if patients continue to remain careless about their own health, doctors should be able to decline treatment. Student D thinks that doctors “do not have an obligation to treat” patients, despite believing that “in a utopian society,” doctors would provide treatment to anyone in need. Student M believes that doctors “should be able to deny (patients) treatment if they are just a detriment to …show more content…
They seem to agree that while the system was designed to help doctors improve, it is now causing more harm than not. Student H, along with Jauhar’s original article, mentions how the system has caused healthcare to be treated as more of a business and not as a basic human right. They talk about how the system makes doctors worry about statistics and numbers and think of their patients in terms of “total-quality management” products as opposed to people that require their help (Jauhar 2). Turning down high-risk patients due to eminent deaths or possible skewing of doctors’ Report Cards goes against the very idea of the medical profession. And yet, as Student C mentions, doctors have to be conscious of these numbers as the Report Card system puts a lot of pressure on them and affects their futures in terms of prospective clients. It might seem counter-productive to turn down certain patients in order to gain others, but it helps doctors with their “numbers,” and therefore is a major flaw in the Report Card System. Most students agree that the system is outdated and should be ended completely. Some students provide an alternative step that requires a higher authority, like an ethics board or a review committee, to examine individual cases and make decisions based on holistic
While most students agree that it is up to the patient to maintain a somewhat healthy lifestyle that negates the needs of surgery in the first place, if by chance they do require medical procedures, most students believe that the individual doctors themselves do not preserve the right to deny them that option. Students F, I and J even mention the Hippocratic Oath to emphasize the fact that doctors have a duty to their patients and cannot just refuse treatment, especially if the patient could be better off with it. On the other hand, students D and M seem to think that if patients continue to remain careless about their own health, doctors should be able to decline treatment. Student D thinks that doctors “do not have an obligation to treat” patients, despite believing that “in a utopian society,” doctors would provide treatment to anyone in need. Student M believes that doctors “should be able to deny (patients) treatment if they are just a detriment to …show more content…
They seem to agree that while the system was designed to help doctors improve, it is now causing more harm than not. Student H, along with Jauhar’s original article, mentions how the system has caused healthcare to be treated as more of a business and not as a basic human right. They talk about how the system makes doctors worry about statistics and numbers and think of their patients in terms of “total-quality management” products as opposed to people that require their help (Jauhar 2). Turning down high-risk patients due to eminent deaths or possible skewing of doctors’ Report Cards goes against the very idea of the medical profession. And yet, as Student C mentions, doctors have to be conscious of these numbers as the Report Card system puts a lot of pressure on them and affects their futures in terms of prospective clients. It might seem counter-productive to turn down certain patients in order to gain others, but it helps doctors with their “numbers,” and therefore is a major flaw in the Report Card System. Most students agree that the system is outdated and should be ended completely. Some students provide an alternative step that requires a higher authority, like an ethics board or a review committee, to examine individual cases and make decisions based on holistic