Pediatrician denies care because of parent's tattoos

If the AMA does not have a code based on Equal Opportunity then this doctor is well within his rights. Whether you think it is just or not is fine. But to criticize his choices is probably not the way to go. Perhaps the discussion for this article could be that when choosing a pediatrician for your child there should be time spent, maybe in a meeting or interview, to judge whether all parties are compatible and that views are similar across the board.

This woman will go somewhere else and her child will get the treatment they need. And of course, I am sure the ACLU will be involved, and some sort of court case will erupt and this poor doctor, who was well within his right to turn someone away, will be pinned the monster.

Reply

Poor doctor? The man let a child suffer because he doesn't approve of tattoos. The child didn't have any and she is his patient. Not the mother. That's pretty crappy imo. Yeah, he may of had the right, but I consider it pretty shitty.

Reply

Speaking as a Christian, this doctor was WAY wrong. As a Christian, you try to emulate Jesus. Didn't Jesus say, "Suffer the little children unto me?" Didn't Jesus heal the lepers and the crippled? The ones who no one would associate with because they were sick, deformed, not "normal"? So WHAT if the mom had tattoos?? This doctor not only violated a Christian tradition of helping those who needed it, he violated his Hippocratic Oath, which says "First, do no harm". How much did it harm that little girl to go home in pain? Pain that he could have easily releived if he had shut his eyes and opened his heart.

Reply

Doctors don't have the right to turn patients away, especially when there are limited options for those patients.

Maybe they have some sort of shaky legal ground, but they have no moral ground. Especially if they presume to call themselves Christian.

Reply

I have several thoughts about this.

First, how did the doctor know about the parents' tatoos if they were appropriately dressed? Maybe it was more than the fact of the tattoos; maybe the doctor felt that the parents were disrespectful in the way that they presented themselves in his office. I really think there was more here than meets the eye. Note we are not hearing the doctor's side.

Second, was there really no place else for this family to go until the next day, if the child was experiencing severe pain? I find that hard to believe.

Third, if this was a "private" office, presumably this wasn't your anonymous "urgicare" situation and the family had some history with the doctor. Why choose a family doctor that is so philosophically opposed to your views? How does one expect the child to ever feel comfortable there?

I have private physicians in my family and they are just normal people with the same likes and dislikes as everyone else. If I don't want to allow someone into my private space because I don't like the way they dress or smell or talk, I have the right to stop them at the door. Why should private physicians have less right? Nobody is paying them for an unlimited easement onto their property. No fair to force them to do anything every other private citizen isn't forced to do.

Reply

treat the kid and tell the parents not to come back, if it's THAT offensive. but turn a kid away in pain? NOT someone I'd consider a good hristian, or even a good human being.

Reply

He may be within his legal rights, questionably. But he's sure a First Class Jerk in my book, without any doubt.

And I don't even like tattoos.

Reply

Regardless of his legal rights to turn someone away based solely on their appearance, did he have a moral right? No. No he did not.

If for some reason the child had died in the night that doctor would have been responsible since he choose to deny her care.

It doesn't matter if there was or wasn't a place for the parents to go get the child treatment in the morning, this man chose to make a child spend a night in pain because the mother had tattoos.

"The parents were disrespectful in the way that they presented themselves" assumption is no excuse. If I were a doctor I would do what was in my power to ease a child's pain, even if the parent showed up wasted and decided to strip in the waiting room. I might call the police and/or child services, but not before making sure that little girl got a perscription.

It's not a doctor's job to dictate the behavior of others, especially if it's not health related. It IS a doctor's job to heal the sick, and this doctor failed to do that.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."
-- Salvor Hardin

Reply

SKL, I have several tattoo's, one of which is easily visible if I wear a short sleeved t-shirt. Hardly inappropriate dress in my opinion. My friend has a bracelet tattoo'd round her wrist, even long sleeves won't hide that one. Whether a doctor approves of what I have done to my body or not should not dictate whether or not he or she gives me or my family appropriate care. My family doctor hates the fact that both my husband and I have tattoo's, he thinks they're silly and a waste of money, but he still gives us the best care possible, because that's his job, and he can see beyond the pictures that we have had painted on our skin.

Anyways, I think that yes, there is likely another side of the story, and I would be interested in hearing it, but I really can't imagine any excusable reason for this doctor turning away a child in need of care aside from the parents being abusive towards him and his staff.

Reply

After watching the video, I am even more on the doctor's side. First, there are clear postings all over the inside and outside of his office, about the doctor's dress and behavior standards. He even advertises very openly that his office is not like other offices, etc., and makes it clear that he is controlling what he allows in his office to make it more comfortable for his other patients (and their parents). Other parents have chosen this pediatrician because they want their children to be in the type of environment that he advertises. If his advertised standards are rendered meaningless by people who decide they don't have to follow them, this is unfair not only to the doctor but also to his other patients. Anyone who doesn't like the rules is free to go elsewhere. And please don't tell me that this guy was the only health professional on duty within driving distance that day.

Furthermore, when they showed the aggrieved mom, you couldn't see any tattoos the way she was dressed for the cameras - she was wearing a rather typical garment that covered them up - so why couldn't she cover them up at the doctor's office? Third, other patients with tattoos haven't gotten any flack from this doctor, so I am even more convinced that something beyond the mere existence of tattoos on her skin had offended the doctor / office staff.

A suspected ear infection is not a drop-dead emergency. If it were, the family could have gone to an urgi-care or emergency room to deal with it, but they chose not to. Furthermore, as was recently reported on this site, ear infections don't usually require any medication at all. So this is not a case of someone lying bleeding to death in the road because of a heartless doctor.

I still say that becoming a doctor should not mean losing some of the rights that every other private citizen enjoys. To be told that they have to deal with whoever and whatever crosses their private threshold would be a huge disincentive to be a doctor.

I think they are attacking this guy just because of his overt statement of his "Christian" beliefs.

Reply

After watching the video, I am even more on the doctor's side. First, there are clear postings all over the inside and outside of his office, about the doctor's dress and behavior standards. He even advertises very openly that his office is not like other offices, etc., and makes it clear that he is controlling what he allows in his office to make it more comfortable for his other patients (and their parents). Other parents have chosen this pediatrician because they want their children to be in the type of environment that he advertises. If his advertised standards are rendered meaningless by people who decide they don't have to follow them, this is unfair not only to the doctor but also to his other patients. Anyone who doesn't like the rules is free to go elsewhere. And please don't tell me that this guy was the only health professional on duty within driving distance that day.

Furthermore, when they showed the aggrieved mom, you couldn't see any tattoos the way she was dressed for the cameras - she was wearing a rather typical garment that covered them up - so why couldn't she cover them up at the doctor's office? Third, other patients with tattoos haven't gotten any flack from this doctor, so I am even more convinced that something beyond the mere existence of tattoos on her skin had offended the doctor / office staff.

A suspected ear infection is not a drop-dead emergency. If it were, the family could have gone to an urgi-care or emergency room to deal with it, but they chose not to. Furthermore, as was recently reported on this site, ear infections don't usually require any medication at all. So this is not a case of someone lying bleeding to death in the road because of a heartless doctor.

I still say that becoming a doctor should not mean losing some of the rights that every other private citizen enjoys. To be told that they have to deal with whoever and whatever crosses their private threshold would be a huge disincentive to be a doctor.

I think they are attacking this guy just because of his overt statement of his "Christian" beliefs.

Reply

I have to disagree with you again, SKL. I think choosing to become a doctor does mean you lose the right of who you get to help. If he was a lawyer at a private practice this argument would go entirely differently.

I would say the same about the nurse who supposedly refused to treat the Canadian woman who aided her boyfriend in the rape and torture of two other women. I certainly have more sympathy for the nurse not wanting to help a convicted raspist then the doctor noting wanting to help a child because her mommy's looks didn't meet his personal stnadards. But in both cases their profession dictates that they help those who needs it regardless of who they are.

The doctor and nurse were not ignorant of these expectations when going through training. There was no "SURPRISE! You have to help children of tattooed mothers!" graduating medical.

Fuck the rest of the people in the waiting room! Just like he should let his personal standards get in the way of caring for a child, he shouldn't let their personal standards determine who he cares for either. Wrong is wrong no matter how many people back it up.

The severity of the ear ache is not the point. He wouldn't know whether medication was needed since he refused to see the patient. It could be a sliver in the girl's pinky or a bullet in her chest. She came for help and the doctor said, "I will not. My other patients and I don't agree with how you look."

Reply

Correction-
I think choosing to become a doctor does mean you lose the right to choose who you get to help.

Sorry about that!

Reply

There's a difference between a nurse in a hospital refusing emergency help, and a doctor in his private office refusing non-emergency help. A hospital usually receives funding at some level from public sources; that, coupled with the emergency status of the patient's need, is what creates a duty to care. Doctors choose private practice so they can do what they want for whom they want, just like every other person in a private business. The medical license does not prevent them from doing this.

So the kid has an earache. What if she was hungry and the parents went half-naked to an upscale restaurant demanding food for the kid? They would be shown the door. What if the kid was illiterate and they showed up at a private school demanding tutoring services? Too bad. Show up in shorts at a lawyer's office? Their choice to serve you or not, no matter how urgent your issue is. Private psychologists can say "no" any time they want - if your kid is freaking out, you can go check him into the mental ward at the hospital. That's the law in this country. To force a private citizen to open his private property to the public is a public taking. This is not a communist country - yet.

Reply

If he refused to treat because of the colour of skin that would be against the law. That falls under apperance.
I work nights, what if I showed up in the middle of the day ( my time to sleep) with the sick child and wasn't looking all that put togther ( as anyone would look when they take their kid to the dr in the middle of the night) can he refuse me because I didn't dress up for him.
Refusing to treat a child because of the way the parents look is the same as refusing care based on race. Because the child can't control the way the parents dress just as you can't control your race.
Completly against any Christian vaules I have been taught.

Reply