4 ms·
There are at least 5 separate issues at play here, but the one most front-and-center in my mind is that under no circumstance should any medical procedure be do
by tristor 4y ago
There are at least 5 separate issues at play here, but the one most front-and-center in my mind is that under no circumstance should any medical procedure be done on any person in the US without informed consent of the person, their guardian, or their medical PoA.
Even if a procedure is "medically necessary", that does not give doctors the permission to do that procedure without your informed consent. When a procedure is not "medically necessary", it's even worse. There are people who refuse "medically necessary" procedures every day in this country on numerous different grounds, including religious grounds, and this is deeply legally protected and well upheld in case law.
There is no valid justification for the behavior of these hospitals.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoCollection of a sample could generously be considered a medical "procedure" done on a person. But if a sample has already been collected for other purposes, testing said sample for an additional purpose can't be even generously said to be a medical procedure done on a person. The lack of informed consent as to what will happen with a collected sample is the thing. It's also incredibly stupid, as without informed consent a person can't think to tell the collector that they've recently eaten a poppyseed bagel, and thus their results will be tainted.
- 015a 4y agoInsurance companies would absolutely classify each specific test done on a specimen as a medical procedure. Each one costs money.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago"done on a person"