Physician, Heal Thyself

[blues]

The AMA puts in its two cents... (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/frustrated-american-medical-association-adopts-sweeping-policies-cut-gun-violence-n882681)


AMA delegates voted to adopt several of nearly a dozen gun-related proposals presented by doctor groups that are part of the AMA's membership. They agreed to:

Support any bans on the purchase or possession of guns and ammunition by people under 21.
Back laws that would require licensing and safety courses for gun owners and registration of all firearms.
Press for legislation that would allow relatives of suicidal people or those who have threatened imminent violence to seek court-ordered removal of guns from the home.
Encourage better training for physicians in how to recognize patients at risk for suicide.
Push to eliminate loopholes in laws preventing the purchase or possession of guns by people found guilty of domestic violence, including expanding such measures to cover convicted stalkers.

[Peally]

AMA, AAP.... as someone outside of the field I'd be interested to know if there's a medical association that isn't a bunch of corrupt old fucks after their own personal gains at the expense of patients.

[Guerrero]

AMA, AAP.... as someone outside of the field I'd be interested to know if there's a medical association that isn't a bunch of corrupt old fucks after their own personal gains at the expense of patients.

https://drgo.us/

[David S.]

The doctor's union glides out of its lane.

[psalms144.1]

So, my brother is a surgeon who, as he ages and gets richer becomes more and more flamingly liberal. His position is "I treat gunshot vicitims, so I am an expert on gun safety issues." I asked him if he routinely pushes for improved traffic laws and safety regulations for cars - and he gave me the RCA dog look. "Surely you deal with more MVA victims than gunshot victims, right?" "Well, yes..." "So, why aren't you enraged about MVAs?" Silence...

[SAWBONES]

As an MD in practice >30 years, I do not belong to nor have I ever had anything to do with the AMA, nor do any docs I know.

They're essentially a political-lobbying organization.

As for the opinions of most medical professionals on 2A issues, they're largely uninformed and therefore of little worth.

As for the ridiculously-biased "research" about "gun ownership as a public health issue" that occasionally gets published in such medical journals as NEJM & JAMA, they're almost always nothing but typical liberal social-science editorial drivel, being presented in pseudo-scientific garb.

(About three decades ago, JAMA published a genuinely-scholarly wound ballistics article by Dr. Martin Fackler, and IIRC they got flak about it being "inappropriate' in the next issue's readers' letters to the editor.)

I know a number of gun-savvy docs who shoot and train, but they're definitely in the minority.

OTOH, I unfortunately also know quite a few docs whose hubris helps them to believe that they are qualified to hold firm opinions about matters of which they are almost wholly ignorant, including firearms ownership, operation and use, terminal ballistics and the ethics of self-protection.

As for pro-firearms, pro-2A physician organizations, the only one I know of is Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, which refers patients who desire not to have their gun ownership be any part of their medical record or any aspect of their care, and I'm on their referral list.

[Guinnessman]

If I were king for a day, I would ban Doctors from flying Beechcraft Bonanzas. That is change that positively affects public safety! :p

[GardoneVT]

Any organization that believes gun ownership is a public health threat without putting equal effort on additional vehicle regulations is hypocritical.

[critter]

...
As for pro-firearms, pro-2A physician organizations, the only one I know of is Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, which refers patients who desire not to have their gun ownership be any part of their medical record or any aspect of their care, and I'm on their referral list.

Wait... what? Gun ownership is part of medical records? Is that for people who are treated for self inflicted injuries? or is this on the latest pre-appointment 80 page questionnaires?

[Nephrology]

As an MD in practice >30 years, I do not belong to nor have I ever had anything to do with the AMA, nor do any docs I know.

They're essentially a political-lobbying organization.


As an MD-PhD student still in training, myself and basically all of my colleagues feel the same way, so this is a sentiment that transcends at least a couple generations. Our SOM bought me a membership that I do not use.


Wait... what? Gun ownership is part of medical records? Is that for people who are treated for self inflicted injuries? or is this on the latest pre-appointment 80 page questionnaires?

You can put pretty much anything in a medical note. Firearms ownership could go under "social history" or otherwise be worked in to some other part of patient history.

There are clinical scenarios where I feel it can be contextually important for certain practitioners to ask about gun ownership: pediatricians asking parents about gun ownership, psychiatrists asking about gun ownership in the context of someone who has endorsed suicidal ideation) but it can be documented in a way that is uncompromising ("Patient's parents advised about importance of safe firearms use and storage"). That said, in other cases, this can be important for medicolegal reasons, especially if the patient is/will be placed on a 72h hold ("Patient endorsed suicidal ideation, has plan to use personally owned firearm to commit suicide once d/c'd from hospital"). You'll note these are relatively rare cases that don't apply to most people.

This information is just as protected by HIPAA as any other part of your medical record which likely contains a bunch of other compromising information too, so I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter, myself.

[45dotACP]

The American Nurses Association is smoking the same rock. Mostly why I have no truck with then professionally. For all their claims of being educated consumers of research, they hardly seem to read into who pays for all the cherry picked studies from the Violence Policy Center.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Peally]

https://drgo.us/

Good on them, but I'm not even limiting it to gun related issues. Seems to be an overall cancer in these large medical organisations, no pun intended.

[blues]

Good on them, but I'm not even limiting it to gun related issues. Seems to be an overall cancer in these large medical organisations, no pun intended.

I guess that's why I don't go to the doc / ER unless I need stitches.

[RevolverRob]

Never had a doctor ask me about firearms ownership. If I did, I would decline to answer the question, because aside from the instances of a 72-hour hold for suicide - it doesn't seem like any concern at all.

[JTQ]

When AIDS among homosexuals/intravenous drug users or teen pregnancy is an issue, does the AMA recommend ways to limit the amount of homosexual sex or drug use, or underage sex, or do they recommend more education on the subject and safer ways to engage in those activities?

[ralph]

Seems to me that Doctors should do what they've been trained to do, practice medicine..The last thing this country needs is the AMA sticking it's unwanted nose in the gun control debate..If the AMA wants to do something to help people, why not go after big pharma for their out of control prices on the meds they make?

[blues]

Seems to me that Doctors should do what they've been trained to do, practice medicine..The last thing this country needs is the AMA sticking it's unwanted nose in the gun control debate..

It's all because of the control ceded to them by having to address them differently than (most) other humans. I just call 'em by their first names. There's only so much deference a physician (or anyone else) deserves.

I can't remember the last time anyone addressed me by "Senior Special Agent" outside of court (for the most part).

[ralph]

It's all because of the control ceded to them by having to address them differently than (most) other humans. I just call 'em by their first names. There's only so much deference a physician (or anyone else) deserves.

I can't remember the last time anyone addressed me by "Senior Special Agent" outside of court (for the most part).

You've got a point..I'm lucky as my Dr. is a gunowner, and dosen't mind that I'm usually carrying when I'm in his office. In fact, he's always got a few minutes to look over a new carry peice..I wish more were like him...

[SAWBONES]

As an MD-PhD student still in training, myself and basically all of my colleagues feel the same way, so this is a sentiment that transcends at least a couple generations. Our SOM bought me a membership that I do not use.

You can put pretty much anything in a medical note. Firearms ownership could go under "social history" or otherwise be worked in to some other part of patient history.

There are clinical scenarios where I feel it can be contextually important for certain practitioners to ask about gun ownership: pediatricians asking parents about gun ownership, psychiatrists asking about gun ownership in the context of someone who has endorsed suicidal ideation) but it can be documented in a way that is uncompromising ("Patient's parents advised about importance of safe firearms use and storage"). That said, in other cases, this can be important for medicolegal reasons, especially if the patient is/will be placed on a 72h hold ("Patient endorsed suicidal ideation, has plan to use personally owned firearm to commit suicide once d/c'd from hospital"). You'll note these are relatively rare cases that don't apply to most people.


Just so.

Note though, that while there may indeed be commonsense occasions for a pediatrician to address safe storage of firearms with parents in a home where small children could have access, his doing so of course should reasonably require that the pediatrician genuinely knows more about guns and their safe handling and storage than the gun owner, which is not usually so, in which case the gun owner will likely perceive the physician's inquiries and ignorant advice as more of an intrusion into privacy than a useful attempt to provide the sort of medical advice one usually has a right to expect from a person acting in the capacity of his physician.

As for medical records and mention of gun ownership or access, in the case of those mental health professionals who have a bona fide concern about safety as regards perceived imminent risks for violent behaviors of a patient toward himself or others (with temporary commitment in view), the more evidence of genuine intent that can be adduced, including details such as method of intended harm or type of weapon, the stronger the case for temporary commitment for observation and protection. These sorts of details should be in the medical record.

Otherwise, outside cases like the above examples, IMO the mere possession of firearms by a patient is not properly within a physician's care-providing purview, in fact, it's none of his damn business, and it doesn't belong in the medical record any more than other non-medical private facts about the patient, such as his political opinions or philosophical views, do.

HIPAA aside, medical records can be and have been used for political purposes by those in positions of power, and I don't believe that the medical record should contain any information about the patient that isn't medical in nature and conducive to the patient's medical care, or necessary for physician communication and documentation.

[ralph]

Just so.

Note though, that while there may indeed be commonsense occasions for a pediatrician to address safe storage of firearms with parents in a home where small children could have access, his doing so of course should reasonably require that the pediatrician genuinely knows more about guns and their safe handling and storage than the gun owner, which is not usually so, in which case the gun owner will likely perceive the physician's inquiries and ignorant advice as more of an intrusion into privacy than a useful attempt to provide the sort of medical advice one usually has a right to expect from a person acting in the capacity of his physician.

As for medical records and mention of gun ownership or access, in the case of those mental health professionals who have a bona fide concern about safety as regards perceived imminent risks for violent behaviors of a patient toward himself or others (with temporary commitment in view), the more evidence of genuine intent that can be adduced, including details such as method of intended harm or type of weapon, the stronger the case for temporary commitment for observation and protection. These sorts of details should be in the medical record.

Otherwise, outside cases like the above examples, IMO the mere possession of firearms by a patient is not properly within a physician's care-providing purview, in fact, it's none of his damn business, and it doesn't belong in the medical record any more than other non-medical private facts about the patient, such as his political opinions or philosophical views, do.

HIPAA aside, medical records can be and have been used for political purposes by those in positions of power, and I don't believe that the medical record should contain any information about the patient that isn't medical in nature and conducive to the patient's medical care, or necessary for physician communication and documentation.

Thank you Sawbones, for that little bit of sanity ^ This country needs more like you..

[Nephrology]

Just so.

Note though, that while there may indeed be commonsense occasions for a pediatrician to address safe storage of firearms with parents in a home where small children could have access, his doing so of course should reasonably require that the pediatrician genuinely knows more about guns and their safe handling and storage than the gun owner, which is not usually so, in which case the gun owner will likely perceive the physician's inquiries and ignorant advice as more of an intrusion into privacy than a useful attempt to provide the sort of medical advice one usually has a right to expect from a person acting in the capacity of his physician.

As for medical records and mention of gun ownership or access, in the case of those mental health professionals who have a bona fide concern about safety as regards perceived imminent risks for violent behaviors of a patient toward himself or others (with temporary commitment in view), the more evidence of genuine intent that can be adduced, including details such as method of intended harm or type of weapon, the stronger the case for temporary commitment for observation and protection. These sorts of details should be in the medical record.

Otherwise, outside cases like the above examples, IMO the mere possession of firearms by a patient is not properly within a physician's care-providing purview, in fact, it's none of his damn business, and it doesn't belong in the medical record any more than other non-medical private facts about the patient, such as his political opinions or philosophical views, do.

HIPAA aside, medical records can be and have been used for political purposes by those in positions of power, and I don't believe that the medical record should contain any information about the patient that isn't medical in nature and conducive to the patient's medical care, or necessary for physician communication and documentation.

Agreed. I don't think it's relevant unless the patient has a specific problem in which having access to a gun is relevant, and really as far as I am concerned this is just HI/SI/72h holds. I don't really care otherwise, in the same way that I don't think sexual orientation, religious belief, or political leaning should have any bearing on patient care until they suddenly do (stated refusal of blood products, history of unprotected receptive anal intercourse, etc) .

Re: pediatricians, I'd be fine with just leaving pamphlets on the safe storage of firearms/'Eddie Eagle" NRA safety literature in the waiting room if I owned a pediatric private practice. Mostly commenting that it isn't entirely outside the purview of the pediatrician to worry about accidents and exposures in the household. If I were in pediatrics, I'd probably expand that to include swimming pools, alcohol/marijuana/other drugs, unprotected windows and other household hazards, and so forth. To focus on guns exclusively is, of course, a myopia of liberal political leanings.

[SeriousStudent]

It's all because of the control ceded to them by having to address them differently than (most) other humans. I just call 'em by their first names. There's only so much deference a physician (or anyone else) deserves.

I can't remember the last time anyone addressed me by "Senior Special Agent" outside of court (for the most part).

I thought they called you Senor Special Agent.

My doctor is awesome. Last time I was in for my annual checkup, I made sure to bring plenty of pics of the new wheelguns. He returned the favor by showing me pics of his latest dive trip. Great guy.

[blues]

I thought they called you Senor Special Agent.

Actually, what they usually called us was pinche aduana. Well, not the Cubans...;)

[Paul D]

I have patients who come to my office who carry concealed at times. I have instructed my assistants to tell the patient NOT to unholster the gun while they are getting examined or an EKG. They can carry it but they cannot "touch" it. I have a strong box in my stress test area where my nuclear tech (who is a gun guy) keeps it for them while they run on the treadmill. All my patients understand gun-safety is my part of the medical care they receive. If they refuse to practice it in my office, I will dismiss them from my care. I had a guy come as a follow up after I saved his bacon from a heart attack. I commended him for quitting smoking but laid into him for open carrying a Glock 19 in the front right pocket of his jeans. He was smart enough to put it in condition 3. In lieu of buying a new blood pressure cuff, I advised him on several quality OWB holsters in his budget range. Oh BTW, fuck the AMA. Bunch of parasites.

[AMC]

My son's new pediatrician asked him a number of fairly intrusive questions outside my presence, which I wasn't happy about. One of them was, "Have you ever carried a gun?" His eyes apparently widened when my kid said, "Of course." The doctor asked what kind of gun, and my son said, "My Henry Minibolt, my Ruger 10-22, and my dad's old Beretta 9mm that I'm gonna start shooting in competition." The doc issued the "Whew!" and told my son that his uncle, who had been a cop, taught him to shoot as a teenager, too. It worked out, but I made clear that such things were not to be discussed outside my presence again.

[LSP552]

It's all because of the control ceded to them by having to address them differently than (most) other humans. I just call 'em by their first names. There's only so much deference a physician (or anyone else) deserves.

I can't remember the last time anyone addressed me by "Senior Special Agent" outside of court (for the most part).

I have a good buddy who was once addressed in court as an Evil Entity. He heard that a lot afterwards ....

My Docs know me, know what I did for a living, and know my hobbies. They all either hunt, fish, and or shoot.

[Chance]

You can put pretty much anything in a medical note.


I'm completely ignorant on the subject, so pardon the stupid question, but: what exactly is a "medical record," who maintains it, who has the right to access it, and what are the patient's rights to contest information contained therein?

[YVK]

Oh BTW, fuck the AMA. Bunch of parasites.

With headquarters located in a prime location in Chicago. Next to a hotel that usually runs $600-800 a night. I quit them over 10 years ago, they still send renewal requests.

I am actually pleasantly surprised that during that vote 99 docs out of 500+ voted against the measures. I expected a near unanimous shit show.

[willie]

I may wear tinfoil under my hat the next time I visit the doctor and let him see it. You know, it does keep out the radio waves.;)

[Nephrology]

I'm completely ignorant on the subject, so pardon the stupid question, but: what exactly is a "medical record," who maintains it, who has the right to access it, and what are the patient's rights to contest information contained therein?


Generally speaking in 2018, your medical record is an electronic file associated with an electronic medical records (EMR) software package such as Epic that is maintained on the computer system at your doctor's office or by the hospital/healthcare system that is taking care of you or has taken care of you in the past. it's also important to note that there is not one, single, centralized "medical record" for a given person, even though things are moving that way (and in many big healthcare systems, things already are that way).

In this file is a bunch of information in several different formats. Depending on the kind of care you've received, this can include: notes by written by physicians and other care providers that provide a narrative of their encounter with you; flowsheets of your blood pressure/heart rate/other vitals; X-Rays, CTs, MRIs and digital images from other radiology studies; lists of your active and previously discontinued medications, allergies, diagnoses, and so on.

As for who has the right to access it, that is simple: under HIPAA, only you and healthcare providers directly involved in your care should be able to access your record without your written release. Furthermore, providers are only supposed to access elements of your records reasonably believed to be germane to the care they are providing you: your dermatologist, for example, should not be reading notes in your record written by your psychiatrist. For this reason, most EMR packages explicitly record what information has been viewed by which users, leaving a trail that can be audited if there is suspicion of improper access.

As for your ability to "contest" information, that's not really something that I know how to answer as in my limited experience it's not been an issue. While these records are routinely littered with incorrect information, typically it's a non issue, as the vast majority of the details it contains are pretty boring and uncontroversial. Those patients with more colorful details in their medical records usually have colorful personalities to go with them (i.e. ED frequent fliers), so there's not much about these folks that stays secret anyway.

[JohnO]

Print out for your next visit to the doctor.

FIREARMS SAFETY COUNSELING REPRESENTATION:
PHYSICIAN QUALIFICATIONS AND LIABILITY
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/Firearms%20Malpractice%20Form.pdf

[Guerrero]

Print out for your next visit to the doctor.

FIREARMS SAFETY COUNSELING REPRESENTATION:
PHYSICIAN QUALIFICATIONS AND LIABILITY
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/horn2/Firearms%20Malpractice%20Form.pdf

Not sure if that's a real, a joke, or just to prove a point.

[Nephrology]

Not sure if that's a real, a joke, or just to prove a point.

The latter two. There is no legal basis for suing a physician who asks you about gun ownership. This is not malpractice, no matter how cute the PDF is trying to be.

It's pretty simple: if a physician asks you a question you don't want to answer, then don't. You are under no legal obligation to do so. If you are truly bothered by their line of questioning, you are completely within your rights to walk out of the exam room and never return. It's that simple.

[David C.]

The latter two. There is no legal basis for suing a physician who asks you about gun ownership. This is not malpractice, no matter how cute the PDF is trying to be.

It's pretty simple: if a physician asks you a question you don't want to answer, then don't. You are under no legal obligation to do so. If you are truly bothered by their line of questioning, you are completely within your rights to walk out of the exam room and never return. It's that simple.

My experience is that there is a legal basis anytime a lawyer says there is.

[Nephrology]

My experience is that there is a legal basis anytime a lawyer says there is.

Not seeing much to suggest the author is a much of a lawyer, either

[Sherman A. House DDS]

I belong to the DRGO.

I don’t belong to the ADA either.

When my pediatrician asks whether or not we have any unsecured firearms in our home, I say NO (which is the truth).

I ENCOURAGE my patients to carry in my office. I have many that open carry. The concealed carriers, who disclose such, receive a discount from me.

I don’t let me staff or patients call me by my first name. Two reasons...they’re in my office for professional services, not socially, and thus they’re seeking the services of a doctor, while I perform surgery on their head. Also, should something go awry, I will expect them and the court I might possibly end up in, to refer to me by my professional title, whether I’m testifying as the defendant, or as an SME for the plaintiff.

This isn’t show-friends, it’s show business.

I have ZERO time for any lobbying organization masquerading as a professional membership based association.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

I don’t let me staff or patients call me by my first name. Two reasons...they’re in my office for professional services, not socially, and thus they’re seeking the services of a doctor, while I perform surgery on their head. Also, should something go awry, I will expect them and the court I might possibly end up in, to refer to me by my professional title, whether I’m testifying as the defendant, or as an SME for the plaintiff.

This isn’t show-friends, it’s show business.

I have ZERO time for any lobbying organization masquerading as a professional membership based association.

On a lighter note...


https://youtu.be/Ps9WToZeM2k

[Sherman A. House DDS]

On a lighter note...


https://youtu.be/Ps9WToZeM2k

Her grille work...needs work!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc_Glock]

Here is a more nuanced position paper (http://bulletin.facs.org/2017/10/a-consensus-based-approach-to-firearm-injury/#.WyLQkIonYdU) from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Trauma care is part of the task of surgeons and the ACS rightly recognizes firearms as a huge contributor to traumatic injuries in the US. The ACS is a legitimate medical organization, not a lobbying group like the AMA.

Excerpt below:

For more than three decades, the ACS COT has advocated for effective prevention of firearm injuries. From a practical perspective, a number of these efforts have stalled because of a lack of consensus among surgeons (and the public) regarding how best to proceed. Most recently, the COT initiated a concerted and dedicated effort to achieving consensus on how best to eliminate unnecessary death and suffering related to firearm injury. We began by publishing a description of our view on a public health approach to firearm injury prevention and on how consensus might be reached to address this significant public health challenge in “Firearm injury prevention: A consensus approach to reducing preventable deaths,” published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery.3



From a naïve starting point, the issue of firearm injury prevention may not seem so controversial; however, even a superficial examination of the issue reveals significant disagreement among otherwise reasonable and knowledgeable Americans. The members of the COT believe, and the data support, that the concept of personal liberty is the major issue of discord in the discussion of firearms and injury. Indeed, the controversy is less about the facts of firearm injury and death than the stories we use to explain the facts.



Americans hold personal liberty and individual rights dear, and two dominant contrasting narratives emerge in the discussion of firearms in the U.S. Based on the COT’s survey data of its U.S. members—with 254 members surveyed and 237 responses—approximately 15 percent have no strong opinion regarding firearms and freedom; however, about 80 to 85 percent support or strongly support one of two contrasting narratives.


Adherents to the first narrative (a little more than half of the surgeons surveyed) believe firearms are important for personal safety and defense and are an emblem of personal liberty. The COT has hosted discussions with all our members regarding their opinions and in conversations regarding firearm injury prevention has found that people who adhere to this first narrative tightly link the meaning of guns and freedom. In this case, a discussion over gun control roughly translates into freedom control. Members of this group tend to focus on guns as beneficial to personal safety and freedom.



In contrast, adherents to the second narrative (approximately 30 percent of the surgeons surveyed) believe that the large number of firearms on the streets and in U.S. homes puts their personal safety and the safety of their families at risk, thereby reducing their personal liberty. People who adhere to this narrative tend to view firearms as emblematic of the violence in the U.S. Based on the COT’s conversations regarding firearm injury prevention, it is clear that adherents to this narrative tightly link the guns to violence, so a discussion over gun control translates roughly into violence control. Thus, this group tends to focus on decreasing guns and limiting access to guns.

[Stephanie B]

I can think of a number of things they could also be asking about. Do people wear portable flotation devices while boating. Do they wear seatbelts. Do they wear helmets while bicycling or riding a motorcycle. If they have a pool, does it have a child proof fence around it. When they cook, are they mindful that small children not pull pots off the stove.

All of those things have significant casualty potential. But if they’re only asking about one thing, about guns, it’s political.

[SAWBONES]

In contrast, adherents to the second narrative (approximately 30 percent of the surgeons surveyed) believe that the large number of firearms on the streets and in U.S. homes puts their personal safety and the safety of their families at risk, thereby reducing their personal liberty.

Posed thus, a narrative of that sort really makes it sound as though "firearms on the streets" are autonomous, self-directed entities which go about commiting mayhem by themselves.

Ridiculous though it is, I have indeed known surgeons who viewed guns as innately evil mechanical devices.


People who adhere to this narrative tend to view firearms as emblematic of the violence in the U.S.

Well, gee, I'd say that's just too damn bad.
Their ignorant misunderstanding is inaccurate.
Misapprehension of symbols is a poor method for making life choices or deciding how to vote.

It's a continual frustration and mystery to me, the way that some people, including even some intelligent and educated people, simply cannot or will not think clearly.

[Nephrology]

Ridiculous though it is, I have indeed known surgeons who viewed guns as innately evil mechanical devices.



A very esteemed surgeon at my institution wrote something to that effect for CNBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346). I was more than a little disappointed, but he's entitled to his opinion.

[blues]

It's a continual frustration and mystery to me, the way that some people, including even some intelligent and educated people, simply cannot or will not think clearly.

Bingo!

[SAWBONES]

I belong to the DRGO.
Me too.


I don’t regularly let my staff or patients call me by my first name. Two reasons...they’re in my office for professional services, not socially, and thus they’re seeking the services of a doctor...Also, should something go awry, I will expect them and the court I might possibly end up in, to refer to me by my professional title, whether I’m testifying as the defendant, or as an SME for the plaintiff.

I agree.

In contrast to Blues' earlier note about "ceding control" by calling MDs "doctor", I simply treat people, both staff and patients, with respect, and expect the same from them.

I don't call patients by their first names, except in rare cases of longstanding patients who have essentially become friends, and I don't usually expect patients or my staff to call me by my first name.

Our relationship isn't social but professional.

OTOH, when people outside the professional medical or doctor-patient relationship call me "doctor", I ask them to call me by my first name instead. It's not that I object to the title, but rather that it properly belongs within a certain context.

[blues]

Me too.



I agree.

In contrast to Blues' earlier note about "ceding control" by calling MDs "doctor", I simply treat people, both staff and patients, with respect, and expect the same from them.

I don't call patients by their first names, except in rare cases of longstanding patients who have essentially become friends, and I don't usually expect patients or my staff to call me by my first name.

Our relationship isn't social but professional.

OTOH, when people outside the professional medical or doctor-patient relationship call me "doctor", I ask them to call me by my first name instead. It's not that I object to the title, but rather that it properly belongs within a certain context.

With all due respect, I was painting with a broad brush to make a point. (I'm actually not that angry and am not averse to calling any physician or dentist treating me "Doc".)

However, I want to make plain and apologize in advance if my comment, made to illustrate a point, caused any offense. I have nothing but the utmost respect for doctors like you and Sherm and a few others that hang around these parts.

(Even if one of you, I'm not saying who, is a bit of a pedant. ;))

[SAWBONES]

With all due respect, I was painting with a broad brush to make a point. (I'm actually not that angry and am not averse to calling any physician or dentist treating me "Doc".)

However, I want to make plain and apologize in advance if my comment, made to illustrate a point, caused any offense. I have nothing but the utmost respect for doctors like you and Sherm and a few others that hang around these parts.


No apology needed, ever, my friend.

I didn't mean to single you out, rather just to say we're not all prideful jerks who require obeisance, but that we appreciate and practice mutual respect.


(Even if one of you, I'm not saying who, is a bit of a pedant. ;))

Whatever could you be referring to? :rolleyes:

[Stephanie B]

I do make it a point to learn my doctor’s first name. If he walks into the room and says “how are you doing, Stephanie”, I’ll respond “pretty good, Frank, how about you?

At least, just about all of them have stopped talking in the third person plural.

[Nephrology]

(Even if one of you, I'm not saying who, is a bit of a pedant. ;))

My crippling autism spectrum disorder is a by-product of attempting to squeeze 2 doctors into one person ;)

[Ed L]

Here is an interesting article from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership on "Boundry Violations," https://drgo.us/article-archive/tim-wheeler-md-articles/boundary-violation/

Also: https://drgo.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gun-question-resource-2.pdf

A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation.

[blues]

Here is an interesting article from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership on "Boundry Violations," https://drgo.us/article-archive/tim-wheeler-md-articles/boundary-violation/

Also: https://drgo.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gun-question-resource-2.pdf

A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation.

When my wife and I first moved to the area we currently reside in we had a physician who asked way too many personal questions, including matters of faith, after which we decided that his approach was not something we were comfortable with and moved on.

We weren't looking for counseling or guidance...simply someone to deal with the routine matters that one might find themselves requiring a physician for. In the end, this particular jackass conducted himself in a manner I considered unethical and negligent when my wife needed care due to a minor earache issue, and that was the last straw. He was fortunate that she kept me from unloading on him (verbally).