Do Doctors/Insurance Companies Have Moral Obligations to Patients?

[Tenta]

Pardon me, because this may be a bit of a rant on the whole matter, and for that matter, just my own personal experiences with hospitals, and the doctors that work in them. Typically, doctors don't give up on a patient unless that matter is hopeless, or until they deem the patient to be medically clear. This much I can accept as true. However, about a couple weeks ago, my uncle actually had a heart attack. He actually died twice in the hospital, before being paddled back to life. Within four days, the man was actually released from the hospital. As miraculous as it may seem, there's actually more to it than the guy being perfectly fine enough to release. As a matter of fact, it was recognized by those that saw him that he was not fit to be cleared from the hospital. He had undergone bypass surgery, and was facing a cholesterol level of nearly 500 mg/dl. While there was discussion of my uncle being placed into rehabilitation for his recovery, it was suddenly made the decision that he was to be discharged from the hospital after the third day. I later spoke with a nurse, whom claimed that the matter involved with issues with my uncle's insurance. I think as it boiled down to was that the insurance company refused to pay for my uncle to stay in the hospital. The doctor's working upon my uncle pretty much decided that while he suffered from slurred speech, and from loss of memory, that he could still be cleared from the hospital. I'm not sure on all things insurance policies, but the question is simple; Do Insurance companies and doctor's have a moral obligation to discharge patients only when they're confident the patient is ready?

Personally, while I can understand the rationale, I don't see how someone can consider it moral to allow a man who has suffered a heart attack to be discharged after three days. It isn't a question of anything more than conscience. Can a doctor find it acceptable to discharge someone when they're not sure of their safety. I'm led to the belief that a doctor is a servant of the community, and that he has an agreement (unsigned as it is) to care for the ills of others, and to create a better case of wellness for the patient once he's discharged. Again, that's merely an opinion.

Do doctor's/insurance companies have a moral obligation to their patients?

 

[Remix]

Pardon me, because this may be a bit of a rant on the whole matter, and for that matter, just my own personal experiences with hospitals, and the doctors that work in them.

good reason to start a rant/debate. there's no point on ranting (and/or raving) about somone else's experiences.

Typically, doctors don't give up on a patient unless that matter is hopeless, or until they deem the patient to be medically clear.

in this case, the doctors do have a moral obligation. They've taken the hypocratic oath, and therefore they've got to do their best by the patients.

This much I can accept as true. However, about a couple weeks ago, my uncle actually had a heart attack. He actually died twice in the hospital, before being paddled back to life.

Awesome reason to get pissed off, mistreatment (to follow, i'm sure) of a man who's very close to death.

Within four days, the man was actually released from the hospital.

that's either very good for your uncle, or very bad. I'm erring towards the latter.

As miraculous as it may seem, there's actually more to it than the guy being perfectly fine enough to release.

there always is.

As a matter of fact, it was recognized by those that saw him that he was not fit to be cleared from the hospital.

then he flat out should not have been released, barring one hell of an extenuating circumstance

He had undergone bypass surgery, and was facing a cholesterol level of nearly 500 mg/dl. While there was discussion of my uncle being placed into rehabilitation for his recovery, it was suddenly made the decision that he was to be discharged from the hospital after the third day.

that's an excelent case for not releasing him. seeing as he's clearly in poor medical shape.

I later spoke with a nurse, whom claimed that the matter involved with issues with my uncle's insurance. I think as it boiled down to was that the insurance company refused to pay for my uncle to stay in the hospital.

that'd come under 'one hell of an extenuating circumstance'. If the insurance company refuses to play ball with your medical fees there's two choices for the hospital. It can pay for your uncle's medical care, or you (as a family) can. Now since I dont think you have a hugely wealthy family (I assume everybody's not hugely wealthy) the latter course is out of the question, and since paying for your uncle would set a precident that could lead to lawsuits from people whose family members don't get treatment paied for by the hospital and/or having to pay for the treatment of all its patients who insurers wont play ball for. i.e. it would set a bad precident financially. and hospitals cant afford to pay for everyone. and if they did, their cash reserves would be emptied and they'd have to close up shop. and that's bad for everyone.

The doctor's working upon my uncle pretty much decided that while he suffered from slurred speech, and from loss of memory, that he could still be cleared from the hospital.

the doctors prety much didnt have a choice. the decision will have been made by the pencil pushers at the insurance company (This patient isn't long for this life. he's going to need lots of treatment and (understandably) will not keep paying his fees after death. therefore he's a poor investment and we're not going to pay for his treatment when he's doomed anyway) and the hospital (the insurance company's not going to pay for him, we cant afford to pay for his care. therefore we cant do anything for him and we should discharge him and free up a bed for patients whose insurers will pay for). The doctors don't have a say in the matter.

I'm not sure on all things insurance policies, but the question is simple; Do Insurance companies and doctor's have a moral obligation to discharge patients only when they're confident the patient is ready?

doctors, yes. insurers, no. Hospitals should, but as Dr. Kelso said, the Hospital has to come first. if the hospital has to pay for every patients care it'll go bankrupt and not be able to treat anyone. It's not right, but that's the way of the world.

Personally, while I can understand the rationale, I don't see how someone can consider it moral to allow a man who has suffered a heart attack to be discharged after three days. It isn't a question of anything more than conscience. Can a doctor find it acceptable to discharge someone when they're not sure of their safety. I'm led to the belief that a doctor is a servant of the community, and that he has an agreement (unsigned as it is) to care for the ills of others, and to create a better case of wellness for the patient once he's discharged. Again, that's merely an opinion.

you're right. however, it's not the doctors decision. the insurers decided not to pay, the hospital decided to release him, the doctor's a middlemen that looks after your uncle and has to discharge him based on the decisions of the higherups. sad though it may be, his (and the hospitals) hands are tied.

Pleasure to cross swords with you over this, Tenta.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I have mixed feelings about American healthcare. I'll share a story here as well. Earlier this year, my mother was diagnosed with spinal stenosis. Her condition got so bad that she had to leave her job in late September and go on short-term disability. She intended to get surgery, but, nothing has happened yet (we'll get to why this is so in just a little bit). While this wouldn't be such a problem, her insurer refuses to dispense the short-term disability that she paid for.

Currently, I'm giving my mom all the financial support I can. However, let's look at what lead to this situation:

The Doctors
I used to respect doctors, but the experiences that I've had in the past couple of months have put a very bad taste in my mouth. It takes forever to get an appointment with them, and this isn't because they have to see so many people; rather, it's because they decide how much they want to work (which is usually no more than 35 hours a week). When did it become the case that the market does not determine the provided amount of a service as vital as healthcare? I have no problems whatsoever paying for healthcare's inflated costs, but I draw the line at someone taking my money and then telling me that they'll provide me with what I paid for when they feel like it. Ultimately, I attribute all of this to the fucking ridiculous barriers to entry that the American Medical Association has erected.

The Insurance Company
Folks, malingering is a bad thing, and I respect insurance companies' desire to uncover as many cases of fraud as possible. But, if my mother's experience with her insurance provider is the norm, then they take the detection of fraud to a whole new level. Essentially, claims people at insurance companies get paid to do nothing but sit on their asses all day, because those that make claims have to do their jobs for them. Instead of investigating claims themselves, these people make you go out and do all the work yourself (calling doctors, filling out forms, sending them to the insurance company, etc). And, if you screw up or you aren't quick enough in your responses, then your claim is denied. This wouldn't be so bad, except you only get one appeal; if you lose that appeal, then they will not honor your claim even if it's the case that they screwed up.

So, I'm now financially supporting my mother, because doctors like to take days off a lot (also, they only like to work with certain other doctors; so, if a certain anesthesiologist isn't free to do surgery on a certain date, then my mother's spinal surgeons won't do the surgery then) and insurance companies use those who pay them as uncompensated labor.

So, do doctors and insurance companies have moral responsibilities to patients? Yes, they do. Doctors should see their license and the AMA's fee-boosting practices as privileges, and should thus provide more healthcare than they actually do. Furthermore, for insurance companies, the burden of proof should lie with them, not with the people they insure.

 

[klunderbunker]

I absolutely hate insurance in this country. We're the only "civilized" country in the world that uses insurance as a profit based system. Think about it like this: insurance companies and doctors (to a lesser extent) make money based off you being sick or healthy. There is zero justification for this, period. Insurance executives make tens of millions of dollars a year. A doctor I could understand as they have a talent that can save lives. Insurance companies control way too much.

I'll cut my rant off there. Yes they have moral obligations. A doctor goes to medical school to help people in the future. Insurance companies apparently are supposed to do the same thing, but they completely fail to live up to these obligations. Everything is about profit for them. Let's see. You have skin cancer. Oh but what's this? You had a car wreck 40 years ago and you have a bad knee because of it? That sounds like a preexisting condition, so we're not going to cover your completely unrelated skin disease. Ok ok. We'll pay for it. Here, have a pen with your letter stating your rates have been tripled. At least with a doctor, they help once in awhile. However, because insurance has gotten so big and so ridiculously powerful, few doctors can live up to their moral obligations. So yes, they exist, but they can't be lived up to.

And hey, thanks to Joe Lieberman who apparently knows more about the budget than the Congressional Budget Office, that's the way it's going to stay.

 

[VKO]

I too hate the way America takes care or lack there of the sick and the poor. What about those who don't have insurance at all. I can't afford it and my job doesn't offer it. So if I get sick what am I supposed to sit here and rot?! If I finally do I get so sick where there is no choice but the Emergency Room I get stuck with a nice hefty 600 dollar bill from when I sat in a bed for three hours listening to my girlfriend cry because they wouldn't let her in the room. Then they put a few IV's in my arm and dictated I probably ate something bad and sent me home. My cousin doesn't get insurance with his job so he doesn't even know how to get it. If your sick then you should get the help you need. Rich or poor it shouldn't be the rich that get to live long healthy lives and the poor that die from sickness or have to live miserable lives because they can't afford their hospital bills. My credit is fucked from those ER visits. I can't open a bank account, or get a cell phone, or car insurance in my name. Its not right. Healthcare really needs to be re-looked at.

 

[Razor]

Doctors take the "Hippocratic Oath." In that, they promise to do no harm and fight for their patients to stay alive. So yes, they have a moral and ethical obligation to their patients. They should fight to keep them alive. That's why your uncle survived even though he died twice. The doctors fought for him. Whether or not this precludes them from euthanasia, as I've argued against, is for another thread.

Now, why did they allow your uncle to be discharged before he was completely ready? They had to. Hospitals can't just let patients use up their resources when the patients may not be able to pay. If a hospital can not make money, they go under and can't help anyone. Therefore, they are held by the balls. Who holds their balls? The insurance companies.

The insurance companies pay the hospitals all of their money, really. If a insurance company won't pay, then the hospital can't really keep you around past your being stable. They have others to save, and others who's insurance will definitely pay.

That simple fact is why insurance companies need to be regulated. But, you know, tax money may or may not go towards abortions and some Republicans fancy themselves smart than the entire Congressional Budget Office, so we're going to continue to get shafted.

 

[Miko]

We dont have health insurance in this country, we just pay our taxes and get treated, in fact, we get treated if we dont pay our taxes.

Coming from someone who doesnt have health insurance and all that shit, the way I see it, if your premium is being paid then you should be kept in hospital until you are well, end of story, if you have a heart attack then it should be the doctors say when you get released so long as you've kept up your payments. That's why you pay the insurance company after all.

So yeah, they do have a moral obligation to you, if you pay your insurance, then your insurance should cover you until your doctor see's fit to release you. Doctor's owe people fuck all, they save your lives, it's the insurance companies who should be forking out.

 

[futurechamp]

Back in August of 07 my daughter was born. They said everything was fine. Her lips were alittle blue, we asked questions. They said she may be cold. Fast forward to October of 07. 7 Weeks to the day to be exact. I get a call at work. They tell me my daughter is on her way to the hospital. She was sent to a different hospital than where she was born. This hospital said that the issues she had should've been caught during the ultrasounds or atleast right after birth. They also went on to tell us that she shouldn't have lived 5 minutes let alone 7 weeks after birth with her issues. She had 7 Congenital heart defects. I'm glad for the time I had with my daughter. But there could've been ways to save here. Stuff we could've tried.

Actually, they said that if she wouldn't have started bleeding internally, they could've tried a heart/lung transplant. Very low success rate, but worth a shot(she lived 7 weeks). She was a fighter to the end.


Also, I think the government has a obligation to protect the citizens and not the doctors... They get malpractice insurance. But, thats another rant for another thread.


Sorry for ranting like this!