4 ms·

I used to live down the block from this hospital and used it frequently, and I feel like the article has it backwards. In one of the examples they cite, the pe

I used to live down the block from this hospital and used it frequently, and I feel like the article has it backwards. In one of the examples they cite, the person given favorable treatment raised $3 billion for the hospital - that does not seem unreasonable, to show a little gratitude to not just a major benefactor, but the person whose name is on the literal hospital. Another example is a sitting senator, who has been the target of threats in the past - probably shouldn’t be sitting out in the waiting area. Much more concerning to me are the reports in the back half of the article where they shuffled off poor patients to Bellevue, which is already stretched thin and ends up taking the brunt of homeless and indigent ER admissions.

_8j50 4y ago
If it was in a non-medical setting I would agree but in medicine a patient's financial contribution or political status should not be a factor of consideration. even if they have been threatened they can hire protection after all and the government can add extra protection as needed. All patients should be safe and secure equally, women who are threatened by an abusive spouse or people injured/targeted by gang shootings don't get that treatment now do they? Even the hospital owner should be treated with the same ethical and procedural considerations. Every doctor and nurse is seriously educated on this.
- mattzito 4y ago
  People whose safety has been threatened or been injured by a spouse and are at risk absolutely will be placed in a room with security, what are you talking about? The financial issue is more debatable, but as the article notes, there's already preference given to friends and family of doctors and nurses - so if they're "seriously educated", it doesn't seem to have stuck. I'm not sure whether I'm more troubled by an informal policy of helping big donors the same way friends and family are or a formal policy that allows people to pay an annual fee for preferential treatment at the ER (which many hospitals have).
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > ... it doesn't seem to have stuck. I agree, but the key word in my comment is "should" as in that is ethics taught in medicine school. It seems you and others think I meant abused people don't get protection at all, it's my fault for communicating wrong. Of course they get protection once they speak up, but as far as I am aware they still have to sit in a queue like everyone else before a nurse sees them and they have a chance to speak, the senator is skipping line here. If it truly is a question of danger there are more formal and proper ways of doing it, not "hey, a senator, he'll go first".
- jjulius 4y ago
  >... women who are threatened by an abusive spouse or people injured/targeted by gang shootings don't get that treatment now do they? Despite your snarky confidence at the end of that comment, this is incredibly untrue. >Every doctor and nurse is seriously educated on this. Yes, every doctor and nurse is seriously educated to protect abused spouses and people whose safety is at risk.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    What is snarky? I don't disagree with anything you said, I am confused.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If a person P has enabled the hospital to exist at all, it seems somewhat reasonable to serve them ahead of some set of people who would otherwise be served first (in the absence of P’s presence) but not served at all (in the absence of P’s existence/fund-raising).
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Except when that is unethical. Service in this case is relief of pain and saving a life, so the only thing the code of ethics in medicine allows to be a factor in that decision is who needs treatment most urgently. So Joe Biden shot in the arm comes after homeless guy shot in the head.

_8j50 4y ago

If it was in a non-medical setting I would agree but in medicine a patient's financial contribution or political status should not be a factor of consideration. even if they have been threatened they can hire protection after all and the government can add extra protection as needed. All patients should be safe and secure equally, women who are threatened by an abusive spouse or people injured/targeted by gang shootings don't get that treatment now do they? Even the hospital owner should be treated with the same ethical and procedural considerations. Every doctor and nurse is seriously educated on this.

mattzito 4y ago
People whose safety has been threatened or been injured by a spouse and are at risk absolutely will be placed in a room with security, what are you talking about? The financial issue is more debatable, but as the article notes, there's already preference given to friends and family of doctors and nurses - so if they're "seriously educated", it doesn't seem to have stuck. I'm not sure whether I'm more troubled by an informal policy of helping big donors the same way friends and family are or a formal policy that allows people to pay an annual fee for preferential treatment at the ER (which many hospitals have).
- _8j50 4y ago
  > ... it doesn't seem to have stuck. I agree, but the key word in my comment is "should" as in that is ethics taught in medicine school. It seems you and others think I meant abused people don't get protection at all, it's my fault for communicating wrong. Of course they get protection once they speak up, but as far as I am aware they still have to sit in a queue like everyone else before a nurse sees them and they have a chance to speak, the senator is skipping line here. If it truly is a question of danger there are more formal and proper ways of doing it, not "hey, a senator, he'll go first".
jjulius 4y ago
>... women who are threatened by an abusive spouse or people injured/targeted by gang shootings don't get that treatment now do they? Despite your snarky confidence at the end of that comment, this is incredibly untrue. >Every doctor and nurse is seriously educated on this. Yes, every doctor and nurse is seriously educated to protect abused spouses and people whose safety is at risk.
- _8j50 4y ago
  What is snarky? I don't disagree with anything you said, I am confused.
sokoloff 4y ago
If a person P has enabled the hospital to exist at all, it seems somewhat reasonable to serve them ahead of some set of people who would otherwise be served first (in the absence of P’s presence) but not served at all (in the absence of P’s existence/fund-raising).
- _8j50 4y ago
  Except when that is unethical. Service in this case is relief of pain and saving a life, so the only thing the code of ethics in medicine allows to be a factor in that decision is who needs treatment most urgently. So Joe Biden shot in the arm comes after homeless guy shot in the head.