4 ms·
I can't say I've actually heard this being a thing in my part of the country. However, you mentioned the following: > (unless they moved to the area) Why not
by epmaybe 8y ago
I can't say I've actually heard this being a thing in my part of the country. However, you mentioned the following:
> (unless they moved to the area)
Why not just lie and say you just moved to this part of the city/town/state? The only downside is that they'll ask about previous records which could get you caught.
And further, what would be a potential reason for refusing to take care of a patient if you didn't follow them from week 1? I honestly can't think of one besides continuity of care.
- burntwater 8y agoI'm guessing it's a malpractice concern. All kinds of things can happen in the first week that aren't visible until a few years later. Who's to blame? The pediatrician who has been taking care of the child for 99% of their life... except for the first critical week...
- epmaybe 8y agoNot sure I understand. If you're even less likely to be at blame since you weren't even there for those "critical" days, I would imagine there'd be less liability.
- danielvf 8y ago"Why not just lie" Some people care about being truthful. ;) "What would be a potential reason for refusing to take care of a patient if you didn't follow them from week 1" It's something like the Apple/Google/Adobe/Intel agreement to not hire each other's engineers. It gives one group more power by making the other party in the relationship have worse options if they leave. If you leaving your current pediatrician means having no pediatrician at all, then the all of the pediatricians in the town benefit. Each can use it as a threat for compliance, force appointments, or have more room to act in ways that parents/patients don't like.
- epmaybe 8y agoIs the refusal to care in relation to a parent not wanting their child to be vaccinated, or solely due to not having been the primary care provider since birth? Edit: I guess my reasoning for this question is based on new guidance from the American Academy of Pediatricians regarding refusal of care to those who refuse childhood immunization. I can't say I agree with that sentiment, and I would also argue that the majority of pediatricians in the US do not refuse care to families who refuse immunization. Why? Because it makes far more sense for a physician to continue to follow up with patients to continue recommending they get immunized. I assure you that most doctors, including pediatricians, don't want kids to die, so most don't refuse care just cause of a family not wanting to vaccinate their kid. It's unfair to a kid that likely doesn't have the competence or capacity to make decisions for themselves. I can't speak towards any pediatrician refusing care, or their reasoning, because I literally have not met one that does. Edit 2: here is some explanation from the AAP as to when they would recommend dismissal of a family. Note that they specifically note that dismissal should be "a very last resort".
- danielvf 8y agoIn our town at least, all of the pediatrician practices that I know about, will not accept a child either did not start with them as newborn, or who moved to the town. This is handled by the front desk, before any discussion of care or vaccinations. At least one pediatrician in our area will also dismiss your child as a patient if you do not schedule something approximating their recommended appointments schedule with them. I agree 100% with you that refusing to care because of vaccination choices should not be done, and that it does harm the cause of vaccinations. (That's the point I was trying to get across in my original post.)