The whistleblowers also allege Dr. Alexander Eastman was already under investigation for trying to procure narcotics for a friend who worked as a chopper pilot for the border agency.
The whistleblowers also allege Dr. Alexander Eastman was already under investigation for trying to procure narcotics for a friend who worked as a chopper pilot for the border agency.
I submit that a misogynist who can keep his patients alive is a better doc than an egalitarian who can’t. I would go so far as to say that the former is a “good” doc, and the latter a “bad” one, measured by every relevant standard.
I’m sure all of Larry Nasser’s patients share your assessment in technical competency over a professional demeanor.
having a patient’s trust is vital to one’s abilities to provide care for that patient, and professional comportment is not a thing that’s solely for nurses. The fact is doctors are dealing with humans, and not cars. but even an auto mechanic is going to have to be customer-servicy once in a while.
I think you’re confusing morality with competence. If I have a choice between two doctors to treat my cancer and one has a fifty percent cure rate and the other has eighty percent but I find them morally repugnant, I’m going with the second doctor every single time.
not at all, actually.
it’s pretty clear that racism, as another example, leads to worse health outcomes for patients. For example, doctors not listening to black women when they say they’re in pain. that relationship goes both ways. Or the effects that the Tuskegee study had on trust, leading to generational distrust. you can dismiss a doctor’s bigotry because he’s skilled. But what happens when that doctor’s bigotry leads them to not use those skills?
Will you say, “oh, he’s a great doctor… as long as you’re not a [whatever]”
professionalism is a basic skill for doctors, nurses, and pretty much anybody out of highschool.
You’re really stretching this further and further to make a point that isn’t there. That example is fraught because if they don’t treat their black patients as well then their percentage is going to be lower. So they’d have to not be racist enough not to affect them professionally, which means it won’t affect my treatment. I also don’t know how racist a doctor is when I’m looking at their success rates.
In any event, I want to live and I’ll go with the doctor that gives me the best odds. I’m not going to die to make a moral statement about racism or whatever because I can be a far more effective advocate by living.
You’re right. It does lower their percentage.
You’re still laboring on the notion that you’re one of their in-group. This is not true of everyone.
Which, i guess, means you’re perfectly happy saying “they’re a great doctor, as long as you’re [not something they don’t like.]”
When my life is on the line, I’m not making a stand over how the doctor treats others. I spend plenty of effort fighting for minority rights that are of no direct benefit to me (apart from living in a better society, but I’m old enough I’m never going to see that better society), and I’ll do more of that if I live.
This is all hypothetical anyway because they person with lower survival rates is far more likely to be the racist than the more successful doctor to be a racist savant. Even if he was, 70% success with minority patients and 100% success with white men makes that a no-brainer when I’m part of the in group.
What does taking a stand even get anyone? So I go to a less effective doctor and die while someone who gives zero fucks about racism takes my slot and lives. Is that some kind of win? For whom?
I rescind my last statement officially. He’s a douchebag who I would only be happy to see if I’m bleeding out on the side of the road. Then I’ll take his pain lollipops and life saving measures. How’s that?
I think you assume you’d be exempt from molestation.
Living and molested is better than dead. You can press charges, or break their legs in the parking lot once you are healthy
checks mirror
I’m pretty safe. But if not and the options were to live and pursue charges or die, I’ll go with the former.
Pretty sure “does this person sexually harass his staff and/or patients?” is a relevant standard when evaluating job performance.
When major orchestras conduct auditions, they blindfold the conductor. She knows nothing about the candidate’s age, race, sex, weight, height, or proclivity for misogyny when she chooses a new musician.
What does your statement have to do with my condemnation of sexual harassment as disqualifying from the title of “good at their job”?
https://lemmy.today/comment/5768323
And we’re right back to “Not sexually harassing patients is a relevant standard” of patient care.