Doctor lawyer Fenster, I don’t think Trump should get all the credit.

He is due credit for his part in a historic accomplishment.

ZRX1200 wrote:

They get a phone call followed by a certified letter that says he will treat for the next thirty days and to give the parent(s) formal notice and to advise to establish with another doctor. This is within AMA guidelines. I helped him write it. He just doesn't want to have anything to do with any of the diseases/conditions again and again, which can occur in unvaccinated populations. A few years ago, he had to set up a huge tent in front of his office and suit-up in protective clothing (PPD) just to see quarantined measles or mumps patients a couple years ago during a huge breakout in unvaccinated patients. What professional wants to continue with a client/patient who refuses to to follow take their professional advice? So, the long answer to your question is yes

rfenst wrote:

How so? It doesn't happen very much anymore.

rfenst wrote:

All FDA approvals and fast tracking stuff aside, in my opinion this is still an experimental treatment. I'm not willing to sign up to be a member of the public beta tests.

BuckyB93 wrote:

What if we tested it on animals at least? Just one little shot...it's wafer thin!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Bucky, which of the following 2 hypothetical doctors is less ethical?

1) A doctor is treating a child never inoculated for measles for something else. That child has just contracted measles and is presently showing no symptoms, but spreading the disease. The next patient is a baby to young to inoculate. That baby catches the measles and dies.

2) A doctor refuses to treat children who are not inoculated. Though he does offer alternative doctors. He treats a baby to young to inoculate and that baby is fine, since the environment was measles free. Though that baby would have died if the measles were caught.

Speyside wrote:

I'll just send a good wine.

Speyside wrote:

Prolly 1st trip after we are vaccinated and wine country opens back up. First year I haven't been to wine country somewhere since 1980.

Have you every been to the western escarpment of lake Onterio? Other than icewines that is the only area in Canada that I have found that makes high quality wine.

Speyside wrote:

Refusing to treat patients based on what medicines they take or don't take or if they fail to comply with what treatments the doctor approves of or disapproves of.

Would it be OK if a health care professional refused to see a patient unless they were taking a medication that was on his preferred list?

This is OK on a legal level, I guess, but does it pass the sniff test re: ethics of the profession?

BuckyB93 wrote:

Ethics of the profession? It happens all the time. Maybe not to folks like us, but to idiots who think they know more than their doctors do.

rfenst wrote: