3 ms·

> False. A doctor has zero ability to order tests without patient consent (or consent of a guardian) in the US. Ability isn't the right word, because they abso

by nullc 4y ago

> False. A doctor has zero ability to order tests without patient consent (or consent of a guardian) in the US. Ability isn't the right word, because they absolutely do it. It's unethical and perhaps illegal in some places, but they are able. I've personally been administered a test non-consensually: I showed up at a hospital with severe pancreatitis, the doctors seemed convinced it was due to alcoholism but I (and my partner who they questioned privately) both reported that I don't drink at all. After several days they suddenly started aggressively treating me, performing tests, etc. I wondered what changed and got hold of my chart-- without my knowledge or consent they took a hair test to assay long term alcohol use and suddenly wanted to treat me when it came back negative. I get that they needed to exclude an obvious potential cause and couldn't trust the patient to give an honest answer... but the non-consensual test really destroyed my trust. Of course, if they'd asked I would have readily agreed and it isn't as if their skepticism wasn't already apparent.

indymike 4y ago
> It's unethical and perhaps illegal in some places, but they are able. Able does not always refer to physical ability. It can refer to legal ability.
- SilasX 4y ago
  To the chagrin of “may I”/“can I” pedants everywhere…
lostlogin 4y ago
In the US system, do you get to pay for the pleasure of having a test you don’t want?
mindslight 4y ago
> I get that they needed to exclude an obvious potential cause and couldn't trust the patient to give an honest answer I disagree with this resigned acceptance to medical paternalism. The basic situation is that you are the patient, and all care should be per your direction. The doctors' responsibility is to treat you based on what you've told them. If you're actually lying, the responsibility for misdiagnosis rests entirely on you. Doctors hedging against a patient lying should only ever be considered within this larger backdrop. For example independent of the nonconsensual sample and testing, it was severely unethical for them to have delayed your care by several days while indulging their own curiosity.

by nullc 4y ago

indymike 4y ago

> It's unethical and perhaps illegal in some places, but they are able. Able does not always refer to physical ability. It can refer to legal ability.

SilasX 4y ago
To the chagrin of “may I”/“can I” pedants everywhere…

lostlogin 4y ago

In the US system, do you get to pay for the pleasure of having a test you don’t want?

mindslight 4y ago

> I get that they needed to exclude an obvious potential cause and couldn't trust the patient to give an honest answer I disagree with this resigned acceptance to medical paternalism. The basic situation is that you are the patient, and all care should be per your direction. The doctors' responsibility is to treat you based on what you've told them. If you're actually lying, the responsibility for misdiagnosis rests entirely on you. Doctors hedging against a patient lying should only ever be considered within this larger backdrop. For example independent of the nonconsensual sample and testing, it was severely unethical for them to have delayed your care by several days while indulging their own curiosity.