# Florida Doc will no longer see unvaxxed patients in person



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Reasonable or not? 
I think it’s reasonable.








Florida doctor says she will no longer accept in-person visits from unvaccinated patients


A Florida doctor says she will no longer accept in-person visits from patients who are not vaccinated against the coronavirus. In a letter to her patients, Linda Marraccini said she will no longer …




thehill.com


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Have they started tattooing people's vax number on their arms yet?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Your hyperbole has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. If you are truly wondering I suggest you start your own thread about it.
This isn’t exclusive to Covid. I know of many pediatricians who won’t accept patients who are unvaxxed with regular childhood vaccines.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I think it’s not reasonable because medical care is an essential service. I also think it would be unreasonable if a doctor refused to accept obese patients or someone with addiction issues.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

*


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I think it’s not reasonable because medical care is an essential service. I also think it would be unreasonable if a doctor refused to accept obese patients or someone with addiction issues.


Obesity doesn’t have an impact on doctors and staff.
Unvaxxed Covid patients can.

Further, why would anyone want to see a doctor who strongly believes in something you strongly disagree with. According to many, there are gazillions of doctors who are anti Covid vax. Why not see them?
i don’t agree with homeopathic medicine so I don’t see a homeopath. I see allopathic doctors.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> Obesity doesn’t have an impact on doctors and staff.
> Unvaxxed Covid patients can.


So can vaccinated patients.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Sounds like the doctor doesn't have any faith in the vaccinations being effective.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Reasonable or not?
> I think it’s reasonable.
> 
> 
> ...


It's her right but, to me, it seems very disrespectful to her patients.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

For me it would be a hard pass on this doctor and yes I'm vaxxed. I would not trust the arbitrary decision to not see the un-vaxxed without any proof that they might or might not be positive for covid.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Sounds like the doctor doesn't have any faith in the vaccinations being effective.


If she had no faith in the vaccine, why would she bother instituting this rule?
Most doctors are likely aware that no vaccine gives 100 percent immunity and that the Covid vaccine does protect from contracting the virus to a large degree and lowers the likelihood of infecting others.
There are breakthrough cases in almost all vaccines.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Most doctors are likely aware that no vaccine gives 100 percent immunity and that the Covid vaccine does protect from contracting the virus to a large degree and lowers the likelihood of infecting others.
> There are breakthrough cases in almost all vaccines.


There wasn't anything in the article about whether the patients were positive for covid. Seems to be a bit of virtue signaling.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> There wasn't anything in the article about whether the patients were positive for covid. Seems to be a bit of virtue signaling.


Many people don’t know they have Covid. Are you suggesting she require a test before seeing each patient?
Do you think that pediatricians who won’t see kids not vaxxed for diphtheria, mumps, measles, etc are also virtue signaling?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Many people don’t know they have Covid. Are you suggesting she require a test before seeing each patient?


For the un-vaxxed yes. It would only make sense. Even though the vaxxed seem to be vectors too.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> For the un-vaxxed yes. It would only make sense. Even though the vaxxed seem to be vectors too.


To a far lesser degree. 
but yes, I would agree that if the patient tests negative for the virus on the day of the appointment that should be allowed. Although it would be difficult to do in practice.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> To a far lesser degree.
> but yes, I would agree that if the patient tests negative for the virus on the day of the appointment that should be allowed. Although it would be difficult to do in practice.


Being a good and caring doctor can be difficult.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> If she had no faith in the vaccine, why would she bother instituting this rule?
> Most doctors are likely aware that no vaccine gives 100 percent immunity and that the Covid vaccine does protect from contracting the virus to a large degree and lowers the likelihood of infecting others.
> There are breakthrough cases in almost all vaccines.


Pfizer might cancel the check if she doesn't institute the rule.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The doctor has chosen to do this for the health and safety of the rest of her practice and staff. Why would someone have a problem with this decision?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

No problem with the doctor doing this, just looks remarkably like someone looking for free advertisement, with a side of virtue signaling. I know I couldn't trust a doctor that behaves without regard for all patients. Singling out a group of people not to treat is worrisome.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> No problem with the doctor doing this, just looks remarkably like someone looking for free advertisement, with a side of virtue signaling. I know I couldn't trust a doctor that behaves without regard for all patients. Singling out a group of people not to treat is worrisome.


She isnt “not treating“ them. She is just not seeing them in person as I understand it.
Many doctors won’t see patients with pinkeye because it can be so contagious. So they treat it over the phone and by prescription.
But claiming she is virtue signaling and looking for publicity is a good way to dismiss the issue for many.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> No problem with the doctor doing this, just looks remarkably like someone looking for free advertisement, with a side of virtue signaling. I know I couldn't trust a doctor that behaves without regard for all patients. Singling out a group of people not to treat is worrisome.


Yet she is not doing that. She is just treating them remotely instead. I believe she is doing what she believes is right for all her patients. That is not behaving without regard.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> Obesity doesn’t have an impact on doctors and staff.
> Unvaxxed Covid patients can.
> 
> Further, why would anyone want to see a doctor who strongly believes in something you strongly disagree with. According to many, there are gazillions of doctors who are anti Covid vax. Why not see them?
> i don’t agree with homeopathic medicine so I don’t see a homeopath. I see allopathic doctors.



The community beside me only has one doctor so without driving hundreds of miles, they have no options. 

I believe my vaccination protects me from those unvaccinated so I don’t see why someone else’s vaccination status is of any great concern to me. 

Am I misinformed?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yet she is not doing that. She is just treating them remotely instead. I believe she is doing what she believes is right for all her patients. That is not behaving without regard.


That doesn’t always work though. There are times when a doctor actually has to physically see patients to address symptoms.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> She isnt “not treating“ them. She is just not seeing them in person as I understand it.
> Many doctors won’t see patients with pinkeye because it can be so contagious. So they treat it over the phone and by prescription.
> But claiming she is virtue signaling and looking for publicity is a good way to dismiss the issue for many.


I don't feel I'm dismissing it but in today's cancel culture climate it's very suspect. And she can do anything she wants with her practice, just as others can question the motives.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

wr said:


> That doesn’t always work though. There are times when a doctor actually has to physically see patients to address symptoms.


So true, never have I seen a doctor that weight and BP weren't taken. Skipping steps that are diagnostic tools is not good medical care.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> That doesn’t always work though. There are times when a doctor actually has to physically see patients to address symptoms.


That is true. But doubtless there are many doctors who don’t require vaccines to be seen.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> So true, never have I seen a doctor that weight and BP weren't taken. Skipping steps that are diagnostic tools is not good medical care.


You haven’t had a televisit before?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> You haven’t had a televisit before?


Yes, I have several times.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> The community beside me only has one doctor so without driving hundreds of miles, they have no options.
> 
> I believe my vaccination protects me from those unvaccinated so I don’t see why someone else’s vaccination status is of any great concern to me.
> 
> Am I misinformed?


Yes.
As in any vaccine, there are those in whom the vaccine doesn’t “take”.
This vaccine does not prevent us from contracting the disease nor from passing it on.
It reduces the chance of both and of experiencing severe disease but doesn’t completely prevent it.
There are among us, people who can’t receive the vaccine because of medical status, such as someone undergoing treatment for certain cancers, etc.
The doctor in question is protecting herself, her staff and other patients as best she can from the virus.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> That doesn’t always work though. There are times when a doctor actually has to physically see patients to address symptoms.


I read she will make exceptions when needed. Maybe she knows best how to meet the needs of her patients and the health and welfare of all those she treats. 

Do you have a problem with her deciding what is best for them?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Perfectly reasonable. Doctors have the right to protect themselves (and thus their families) as well as their staff and their other patients. Our doctors here have been using telephone and video conferencing for the past 19 months to service their patients when personal contact was not necessary and now are also demanding vaccination proof. Emergency doctors may not have the choice but family doctors and specialists do.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> Yes.
> As in any vaccine, there are those in whom the vaccine doesn’t “take”.
> This vaccine does not prevent us from contracting the disease nor from passing it on.
> It reduces the chance of both and of experiencing severe disease but doesn’t completely prevent it.
> ...


Then what’s the point of making them mandatory?


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Do these vaxlovers require the flu vax? That is a far deadlier disease than Wuflu.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Yes.
> As in any vaccine, there are those in whom the vaccine doesn’t “take”.
> This vaccine does not prevent us from contracting the disease nor from passing it on.
> It reduces the chance of both and of experiencing severe disease but doesn’t completely prevent it.
> ...


So, as someone who was told by my doctors to not take the vaccine, im just sol than? If the doctors took the vaccine, they should have no worries at all about seeing someone who is unvaccinated because their protected. First, do no harm. Refusing patients is doing harm is it not?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I read she will make exceptions when needed. Maybe she knows best how to meet the needs of her patients and the health and welfare of all those she treats.
> 
> Do you have a problem with her deciding what is best for them?


Maybe she's just terrified like the msm wants everyone to be. First, do no harm. Is she following her oath? It appears not. Of course there's the rub...
She could infect her other patients. She could anyway...right?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> Then what’s the point of making them mandatory?


I’m not seeing where anyone is making the vaccine mandatory. But if more people take them, and the vaccine reduces the chance of catching it and passing it on to others , then the outcome would be that fewer people are infected.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So, as someone who was told by my doctors to not take the vaccine, im just sol than? If the doctors took the vaccine, they should have no worries at all about seeing someone who is unvaccinated because their protected. First, do no harm. Refusing patients is doing harm is it not?


if you have a true medical exemption then exceptions are made. But it sounds like you have a doc that is treating you. 
And no. Not seeing a patient is not doing harm. 
If your doctor is booked up and can’t see you is he doing harm?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Maybe she's just terrified like the msm wants everyone to be. First, do no harm. Is she following her oath? It appears not. Of course there's the rub...
> She could infect her other patients. She could anyway...right?


Maybe she is not terrified but follow best medical practices for her patients. Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Maybe she's just terrified like the msm wants everyone to be. First, do no harm. Is she following her oath? It appears not. Of course there's the rub...
> She could infect her other patients. She could anyway...right?


any doctor could infect any patient. But they mitigate risk as best they can by many practices. Like sterilizong equipment, etc. or requiring vaccine.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m not seeing where anyone is making the vaccine mandatory. But if more people take them, and the vaccine reduces the chance of catching it and passing it on to others , then the outcome would be that fewer people are infected.


I guess it depends on perspective. If doctors are going to deny care to unvaccinated, it seems somewhat forced. 

Let’s remember that doctor is also refusing to see younger children. Don’t they deserve proper medical care?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

If she has a private practice she doesn't have to see anyone she doesn't want too. And unless you need lab work there really is no reason to see them in person. My wife see almost all of her patients via tella med. I don't see the problem. Many of her patients will take their own temp, and blood pressure during the visit.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This doctor is not denying care. She is providing it an alternative way. The same way many people see their doctors in the past decade.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I guess it depends on perspective. If doctors are going to deny care to unvaccinated, it seems somewhat forced.
> 
> Let’s remember that doctor is also refusing to see younger children. Don’t they deserve proper medical care?


Gynecologist s refuse to see men.
Do they not deserve proper care?
My internist does t see children either.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> if you have a true medical exemption then exceptions are made. But it sounds like you have a doc that is treating you.
> And no. Not seeing a patient is not doing harm.
> If your doctor is booked up and can’t see you is he doing harm?


Yes, by forcing me to wait, my condition may worsen. I've had a sinus infection for almost 2 years. I have insurance but the ent in my group isn't seeing patients right now. Bacterial antibiotics aren't working. I paid out of my pocket to get a ct scan. My gp said it shows a polip, but an ent needs to treat it or remove it. So, i wait as my vision deteriorates and i feel like crap a lot of the time, but i can't stop working, so i suffer....needlessly.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, by forcing me to wait, my condition may worsen. I've had a sinus infection for almost 2 years. I have insurance but the ent in my group isn't seeing patients right now. Bacterial antibiotics aren't working. I paid out of my pocket to get a ct scan. My gp said it shows a polip, but an ent needs to treat it or remove it. So, i wait as my vision deteriorates and i feel like crap a lot of the time, but i can't stop working, so i suffer....needlessly.


So make a appointment with a different provider. Or just go to one of those walk in clinics, and they will give you a referral, and the insurance will pay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Maybe she is not terrified but follow best medical practices for her patients. Do you have a problem with that?


Yup, i do....do no harm. She took an oath. She could resign if she doesn't agree with it. 
Maybe she is terrified. Do you have a problem with that excuse?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Like most business owners or providers, doctors are not obligated to see patients for whatever reason other than discrimination against protected classes . We were “fired” from a pediatrician once for challenging a billing error.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

muleskinner2 said:


> So make a appointment with a different provider. Or just go to one of those walk in clinics, and they will give you a referral, and the insurance will pay.


Unless you live in a rural area. Closest walk in is nearly 200 miles away.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Just curious. Does anyone think an OB/GYN should be forced to care for a trans woman?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, i do....do no harm. She took an oath. She could resign if she doesn't agree with it.
> Maybe she is terrified. Do you have a problem with that excuse?


Can you provide proof that she has done harm? I guess she could do harm by taking a day off or even a holiday. Wait maybe she could do harm by getting covid from a patient and giving it to one of her other patients.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Unless you live in a rural area. Closest walk in is nearly 200 miles away.


Is a business obligated to serve you because you live in a rural area and you don’t believe you should have to wear clothes to shop there?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> So make a appointment with a different provider. Or just go to one of those walk in clinics, and they will give you a referral, and the insurance will pay.


It would be great, but insurance will not pay out of network. I would have to foot the bill myself, which i am doing. I can afford it, lots can't. There's the rub.
Took me 48 days to get into a lab(lab corp, quest diagnostics) for basic bloodwork. I've been to a walk in clinic. They kept telling me i had an ear wax build up. Nope, wrongo....infection it is. No ear wax in my ears according to the ENT. So, i wait.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Is a business obligated to serve you because you live in a rural area and you don’t believe you should have to wear clothes to shop there?


Huh?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Can you provide proof that she has done harm? I guess she could do harm by taking a day off or even a holiday. Wait maybe she could do harm by getting covid from a patient and giving it to one of her other patients.


Or maybe she could do harm by refusing to see her patients. Can you provide proof that she hasn't done any harm to anyone? Bet you can't!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Or maybe she could do harm by refusing to see her patients. Can you provide proof that she hasn't done any harm to anyone? Bet you can't!


She has not refused to treat her patients.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Huh?


Your choice to live on an area with few businesses or doctors does not obligate them to serve you.
You have the freedom to live where you like and they also have the freedom to serve who they choose aside from protected classes.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

What about those who don’t buy insurance or pay their bills. Are individual doctors outside of hospitals required to treat them for free? Is that doing harm?


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Lisa in WA said:


> Your choice to live on an area with few businesses or doctors does not obligate them to serve you.
> You have the freedom to live where you like and they also have the freedom to serve who they choose aside from protected classes.


True. But if she doesn't require patients to have the seasonal flu vaccine then she is just being a hypocritical lemming.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vjk said:


> True. But if she doesn't require patients to have the seasonal flu vaccine then she is just being a hypocritical lemming.


The flu does not kill or put as high a percentage in the hospital as Covid does. I expect you to deny that but the truth proves otherwise.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

i haven’t really seen anyone complaining here about Texas women who will now be forced to drive long distances to other states for the abortions they might want or need Because the state is effectively banning abortion.
Why is that?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Sometimes I think people demand freedoms only in the way that serves them.

How many here think that baker in Oregon shouldn’t be prosecuted because he wouldnt bake a wedding cake for the gay couple? But a doctor should be forced to see a patient that can infect others because they don’t want to be vaccinated and it’s inconvenient for them to drive elsewhere.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

It is our natural inclination.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> i haven’t really seen anyone complaining here about Texas women who will now be forced to drive long distances to other states for the abortions they might want or need Because the state is effectively banning abortion.
> Why is that?


Because most folks here unfortunately don't give a darn what impact that hateful legislation has on women as long as they can force their opinion into women's pregnancy. 

Re: the doctor in the OP, I think she is being disrespectful of her patients by not seeing them in person and, if she was my doctor, I would find another one. 

However, since the state hasn't passed a law requiring her not to provide in person services to her patients, the two situations are not the same.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> The doctor has chosen to do this for the health and safety of the rest of her practice and staff. Why would someone have a problem with this decision?


Because her reasoning does not match the job that we are being told the vaccine does.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> Because most folks here unfortunately don't give a darn what impact that hateful legislation has on women as long as they can force their opinion into women's pregnancy.
> 
> Re: the doctor in the OP, I think she is being disrespectful of her patients by not seeing them in person and, if she was my doctor, I would find another one.
> 
> However, since the state hasn't passed a law requiring her not to provide in person services to her patients, the two situations are not the same.


I didnt say they were the same.
However they can serve as a comparison to show that people want the freedoms they want and aren’t as worried about others getting those same freedoms.
I don’t see any disrespect From the doctor.
she is trying as best she can to mitigate the chance of illness in herself, her staff, and her other patients.
It could also be asked why an un vaxxed patient would WANT to see a doctor for whom they have no trust in her medical advise.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Because her reasoning does not match the job that we are being told the vaccine does.


Yes, it does. It serves the same way other vaccines do. It Lowers the chances of catching a virus, being severely ill with that virus and infecting others with it. 
No vaccine is 100 percent but they serve a significant purpose as does this vaccine.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Lisa in WA said:


> Yes.
> As in any vaccine, there are those in whom the vaccine doesn’t “take”.
> This vaccine does not prevent us from contracting the disease nor from passing it on.
> It reduces the chance of both and of experiencing severe disease but doesn’t completely prevent it.
> ...


If the doctor does not have the ability to protect herself, staff, other patients from covid then she probably does not have the ability to protect them from a variety of other contagious problems. Probably best if she saw no one it seems to me.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> If the doctor does not have the ability to protect herself, staff, other patients from covid then she probably does not have the ability to protect them from a variety of other contagious problems. Probably best if she saw no one it seems to me.


Sure she does. 
She can treat people with pink eye over the phone. She can have a separate waiting room for well checks and sick people. She can sanitize equipment, wash gowns, change the paper on exam tables, wear masks. Etc.
And she can require patients to vaccinate for a specific disease that is killing many people or not see them in person.

i think you’re just angry because you’re in the anti vax group and you don’t like it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Because her reasoning does not match the job that we are being told the vaccine does.


I think it is doing what it is supposed to do. It is reducing death and severe illnesses. It was never claimed that it would not have breakthrough infections.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Well I am not in the anti vas group. Seems to be a good idea actually. I am very much against people being forced due to job, insurance, fees to attend school, or a variety of other methods being used. 

Your list of how she can protect her workplace means she can handle covid concerns, if she desires to. 

If she wishes to limit her customer base then do so. Just say no new customers. The virtue signaling some mention seems to apply here.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> I think it is doing what it is supposed to do. It is reducing death and severe illnesses. It was never claimed that it would not have breakthrough infections.


I agree, now the doctor needs to understand.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> i don’t agree with homeopathic medicine so I don’t see a homeopath. I see allopathic doctors.


This makes perfect sense and will probably be what will happen. When I saw the title, that's what I thought to myself, people who are so strong against the injection aren't going to go to an allopathic doctor, typically.

I see it as if a dr has a speciality and this dr now does not include unvaccinated people in her speciality. Probably too difficult to deal with since they are the type of people who want to know a lot about the drugs suggested by a dr. Easier to have patients that go along with the mindset/theories.



Lisa in WA said:


> Just curious. Does anyone think an OB/GYN should be forced to care for a trans woman?


If a person has had a physical transition, one would assume they already had a dr. to see and no one would be being forced. 

I feel like an ob/gyn has to do with certain body parts and if you have those parts it works, if you don't, it doesn't.

I can't bring a Kubota tractor to a Motorcycle repair shop. (unless of course the mechanic is knowledgeable and flexible but you know what I am trying to say here.)


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> I agree, now the doctor needs to understand.


The doctor does understand. And you do not. Which is why she is the doctor and you are not.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> This makes perfect sense and will probably be what will happen. When I saw the title, that's what I thought to myself, people who are so strong against the injection aren't going to go to an allopathic doctor, typically.
> 
> I see it as if a dr has a speciality and this dr now does not include unvaccinated people in her speciality. Probably too difficult to deal with since they are the type of people who want to know a lot about the drugs suggested by a dr. Easier to have patients that go along with the mindset/theories.
> 
> ...


Agreed. But there are actually transwomen kicking up a huge fuss because they insist they are women with penises and they want what they want.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Lisa in WA said:


> Agreed. But there are actually transwomen kicking up a huge fuss because they insist they are women with penises and they want what they want.


  
wow


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> I didnt say they were the same.
> However they can serve as a comparison to show that people want the freedoms they want and aren’t as worried about others getting those same freedoms.
> I don’t see any disrespect From the doctor.
> she is trying as best she can to mitigate the chance of illness in herself, her staff, and her other patients.
> It could also be asked why an un vaxxed patient would WANT to see a doctor for whom they have no trust in her medical advise.


The disrespect I see is that she is giving the appearance that she considers the unvaccinated to be less worthy of her time. But it is her right to do so.

I would question the logic in her approach, especially considering that the vaccinated can and do get Covid. In fact, the one positive case we've had at work (so far) this school year was a fully vaccinated staff member so, had we banned the unvaccinated from the building, it would have been pointless.

Just because one is unvaccinated, it does not mean that they don't trust their doctor.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> The disrespect I see is that she is giving the appearance that she considers the unvaccinated to be less worthy of her time. But it is her right to do so.
> 
> I would question the logic in her approach, especially considering that the vaccinated can and do get Covid. In fact, the one positive case we've had at work (so far) this school year was a fully vaccinated staff member so, had we banned the unvaccinated from the building, it would have been pointless.
> 
> Just because one is unvaccinated, it does not mean that they don't trust their doctor.


She may well consider the unvaccinated to be unworthy of her time. I don’t know. But that is up to her. If that is her intent and you disagree with that then I’m sure you’d prefer a different doctor anyway.

I was pretty mad when I was kicked out of my pediatrician’s practice because of their billing mistake and the fact that we respectfully argued with them about it. 
But ultimately I wouldn’t want to deal with a practice that behaved that way.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> She may well consider the unvaccinated to be unworthy of her time. I don’t know. But that is up to her. If that is her intent and you disagree with that then I’m sure you’d prefer a different doctor anyway.


Where did I say it wasn't her right to do so?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think she is respecting all her patients. It just appears that she is not to you.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> The flu does not kill or put as high a percentage in the hospital as Covid does. I expect you to deny that but the truth proves otherwise.


Because you are comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure one of the much-vaunted 'teachers' on here will be happy to explain to you the difference between dying of Wuflu and dying with Wuflu. If compared apples to apples, more people die of the seasonal flu than Wuflu.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Still can’t believe how weird that was.
My toddler had a bad earache and we had the last apt on a Friday. 
The doc prescribed antibiotics and a painkilling drop.
But when we got to the pharmacy to pick up the scrips, she had forgotten to call in the drops. 
I called (after hours at this point) and asked them to call it in and they did. 
And then charged us $50 for an after hours call. 
We argued that it was due to the dr forgetting it so they removed the charge and told us to find another pediatrician. 
So we did.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> Where did I say it wasn't her right to do so?


I did t say that you said that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> She has not refused to treat her patients.


Just the unvaccinated ones.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Just the unvaccinated ones.....


No, she is treating them. Have you read the entire news story yet?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

no really said:


> No problem with the doctor doing this, just looks remarkably like someone looking for free advertisement, with a side of virtue signaling. I know I couldn't trust a doctor that behaves without regard for all patients. *Singling out a group of people not to treat is worrisome.*


And very unethical.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

no really said:


> Unless you live in a rural area. Closest walk in is nearly 200 miles away.


You got me there, my nearest walk in is only ninety miles away.


Lisa in WA said:


> What about those who don’t buy insurance or pay their bills. Are individual doctors outside of hospitals required to treat them for free? Is that doing harm?


No, they are not required to treat them for free. If they don't see them, how could they possibly harm them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No, she is treating them. Have you read the entire news story yet?


Good for her! But the article said she was going to treat them, which is it?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> This doctor is not denying care. She is providing it an alternative way. The same way many people see their doctors in the past decade.


I don't believe anyone in my area saw a doctor by zoom before covid so it's not that common and there subtle nuances that just aren't picked up that way. 

My cousin's life was literally saved because he took his son in for an asthma checkup and his doctor spotted something very concerning in time to treat it. 

I also have a young neighbour who's app appointments were an epic fail because his doctor passed off his 'feeling unwell' appointments as a young husband working too hard until he ended up in ER.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> i haven’t really seen anyone complaining here about Texas women who will now be forced to drive long distances to other states for the abortions they might want or need Because the state is effectively banning abortion.
> Why is that?


They have not banned abortions, they have simply reduced the window of time in which you can legally kill your baby. If you don't want to have a baby then don't make one. Being too stupid or lazy to take a pill, does not justify taking a life.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> Sometimes I think people demand freedoms only in the way that serves them.
> 
> How many here think that baker in Oregon shouldn’t be prosecuted because he wouldnt bake a wedding cake for the gay couple? But a doctor should be forced to see a patient that can infect others because they don’t want to be vaccinated and it’s inconvenient for them to drive elsewhere.


I disagree. I'm pretty consistent in my opinions but the thread you started isn't actually about the other two subjects.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, they DID change the Hippocratic Oath to prevent racial and gender bias.....


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> It would be great, but insurance will not pay out of network. I would have to foot the bill myself, which i am doing. I can afford it, lots can't. There's the rub.
> Took me 48 days to get into a lab(lab corp, quest diagnostics) for basic bloodwork. I've been to a walk in clinic. They kept telling me i had an ear wax build up. Nope, wrongo....infection it is. No ear wax in my ears according to the ENT. So, i wait.


We have the same problem with patients at my wife's clinic. We recommend they change insurance companies. If your insurance company isn't covering your needs, why would you stay with them?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Lisa in WA said:


> Obesity doesn’t have an impact on doctors and staff.
> Unvaxxed Covid patients can.
> 
> Further, why would anyone want to see a doctor who strongly believes in something you strongly disagree with. According to many, there are gazillions of doctors who are anti Covid vax. Why not see them?
> i don’t agree with homeopathic medicine so I don’t see a homeopath. I see allopathic doctors.


KInda like the 
To protect and serve on a police vehicle

And if a doctor takes government money, yes, they are the same


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I disagree. I'm pretty consistent in my opinions but the thread you started isn't actually about the other two subjects.


it’s about someone having the right to deny service if they choose.
Since Canada has an entirely different health and legal system it may be different than here


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

SLFarmMI said:


> It's her right but, to me, it seems very disrespectful to her patients.


I hope her patients vote with their feet


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Riverdale said:


> KInda like the
> To protect and serve on a police vehicle
> 
> And if a doctor takes government money, yes, they are the same


Clearly that’s not true, since doctors can choose not to treat some people.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> other than discrimination against protected classes


My wife has had her own clinic for years, and I have never heard of a "protected class". Could you give an example?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> it’s about someone having the right to deny service if they choose.


I've remained consistent and have always said that I don't agree with refusing essential services. If more doctors follow suit, we're going to have a lot of children receiving non or cut rate medical care and that's heartbreaking.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> My wife has had her own clinic for years, and I have never heard of a "protected class". Could you give an example?


*physicians cannot refuse to accept a person for ethnic, racial, or religious reasons*. Nor can they discriminate based on the person's sex, unless the sex of the patient is relevant to the physician's specialty.


----------



## stars at night (Mar 12, 2021)

Lisa in WA said:


> Reasonable or not?
> I think it’s reasonable.
> 
> 
> ...


I think it is very reasonable also. she is entirely within her rights and oath to do this.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I've remained consistent and have always said that I don't agree with refusing essential services. If more doctors follow suit, we're going to have a lot of children receiving non or cut rate medical care and that's heartbreaking.


and maybe it’s not legal in Canada to do so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No one is refusing to provide essential services. She is deciding how she provides them. All doctors do that. Even in Canada.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> *physicians cannot refuse to accept a person for ethnic, racial, or religious reasons*. Nor can they discriminate based on the person's sex, unless the sex of the patient is relevant to the physician's specialty.


You still haven't given an example of a protected class. Which ethnic group, racial group, or which religion?


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

Lisa in WA said:


> Reasonable or not?
> I think it’s reasonable.
> 
> 
> ...


That's her choice. I will not allow anyone in my house that has the virtus.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Just the unvaccinated ones.....


She has not refused service to anyone. She has offered them and alternative means for an office visit.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I don't think she is ignoring her non vacced patients, she's just made a new office policy not to see them in person. 
I'm going to look into tele visits, I'd love to save a trip or time spent sitting around in the office.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No one is refusing to provide essential services. She is deciding how she provides them. All doctors do that. Even in Canada.


Other than religous reasons or specialists, who require a referral, I've never known a doctor to refuse to see patients in my health region and I did a quick google search showed no news articles showing doctors refusing to accept unvaccinated patients. 

I'm vaccinated and my friend is not, yet we're both treated in office. Mask up and stand back.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

doozie said:


> I don't think she is ignoring her non vacced patients, she's just made a new office policy not to see them in person.
> I'm going to look into tele visits, I'd love to save a trip or time spent sitting around in the office.


They may be good for some things but I wouldn't want to have a serious condition treated that way.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Other than religous reasons or specialists, who require a referral, I've never known a doctor to refuse to see patients in my health region and I did a quick google search showed no news articles showing doctors refusing to accept unvaccinated patients.
> 
> I'm vaccinated and my friend is not, yet we're both treated in office. Mask up and stand back.


They decide where to practice and how they see their patients. She has not refused to treat unvaccinated patients.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Can a walk-in clinic doctor refuse to see an unvaccinated patient? It may depend


Can a walk-in clinic doctor refuse to see an unvaccinated patient? The answer, like so much right now, isn’t straightforward, according to two medical ethics experts with differing opinions.




www.timescolonist.com





Earlier this week, a 13-year-old boy with a sore wrist was turned away from an Enderby walk-in clinic because he wasn’t vaccinated and told to seek care at the emergency room in Salmon Arm instead.

“I was flabbergasted,” the boy’s mom, Kate Stein, told Postmedia News. “The doctor wouldn’t see us. He was only accepting fully vaccinated patients.”


Yes Canada.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> They decide where to practice and how they see their patients. She has not refused to treat unvaccinated patients.


I understand the point, repeating it isn't going to change my opinion. 

I feel that zoom doctoring is not a proper visit and have seen some pretty epic failures. If you feel that an 11 year old is getting the best possible care in a conference call, that's great. I don't. 

It certainly doesn't mean a doctor in the US can't do whatever they want, it just speaks to their ethics.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Can a walk-in clinic doctor refuse to see an unvaccinated patient? It may depend
> 
> 
> Can a walk-in clinic doctor refuse to see an unvaccinated patient? The answer, like so much right now, isn’t straightforward, according to two medical ethics experts with differing opinions.
> ...


It speaks to ethics.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I understand the point, repeating it isn't going to change my opinion.
> 
> I feel that zoom doctoring is not a proper visit and have seen some pretty epic failures. If you feel that an 11 year old is getting the best possible care in a conference call, that's great. I don't.
> 
> It certainly doesn't mean a doctor in the US can't do whatever they want, it just speaks to their ethics.


No one is going to be turning away ann 11 year old at this point because they can’t get vaccinated. 
I don’t know that I’d want to see this doctor either. I support her right to do what she’s doing but I do think risk can be significantly reduced thru masking. If a patient refuses to mask though, that’s on them.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)




----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I understand the point, repeating it isn't going to change my opinion.
> 
> I feel that zoom doctoring is not a proper visit and have seen some pretty epic failures. If you feel that an 11 year old is getting the best possible care in a conference call, that's great. I don't.
> 
> It certainly doesn't mean a doctor in the US can't do whatever they want, it just speaks to their ethics.


Yet you believe this doctor is providing an essential services and should do that according to how you believe she should should. 

I believe she will be busy enough with Patients who take her advise. I don't know why anyone who can but won't get vaccinated, would want to see a doctor they don't trust.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Forcast said:


>


Oh, FFS.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

wr said:


> I feel that zoom doctoring is not a proper visit and have seen some pretty epic failures


Nobody is being forced to see this doctor, or to use tele med services. If they don't like her rules, they can go someplace else.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yet you believe this doctor is providing an essential services and should do that according to how you believe she should should.
> 
> I believe she will be busy enough with Patients who take her advise. I don't know why anyone who can but won't get vaccinated, would want to see a doctor they don't trust.


I know quite a few people who are unable to vaccinate. Everyone under the age of 12 can not legally be vaccinated, unless you know something I don't. I firmly believe that absolutely no doctor should start vaccinating children below the age of 12. It's not a matter of bending to my will, it's a matter of expecting anyone who can not be vaccinated to have access to proper medical care.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

muleskinner2 said:


> Nobody is being forced to see this doctor, or to use tele med services. If they don't like her rules, they can go someplace else.


In Canada, they just go to ER, clog up the system and cost taxpayers more money.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I know quite a few people who are unable to vaccinate. Everyone under the age of 12 can not legally be vaccinated, unless you know something I don't. I firmly believe that absolutely no doctor should start vaccinating children below the age of 12. It's not a matter of bending to my will, it's a matter of expecting anyone who can not be vaccinated to have access to proper medical care.


Able to be vaccinated. Those were my words.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Able to be vaccinated. Those were my words.


My words were clear too. You're just quick to assume that I'm an anti vaxxer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> My words were clear too. You're just quick to assume that I'm an anti vaxxer.


No that is all your assumption.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Lisa in WA said:


> Clearly that’s not true, since doctors can choose not to treat some people.



My oath is my word

Without it, I am nothing

It seems people have forgotten this


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*Canned Heat - Let's Work Together (1970)*


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Riverdale said:


> My oath is my word
> 
> Without it, I am nothing
> 
> It seems people have forgotten this


congratulations. 
What does that have to do with this thread or my comment? 
Because the doctor in question does not appear to be violating the Hippocrates oath.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m not seeing where anyone is making the vaccine mandatory. But if more people take them, and the vaccine reduces the chance of catching it and passing it on to others , then the outcome would be that fewer people are infected.


The vaccine protects against serious illness, hospitalization and death. We don't know the percent of breakthrough cases, which are increasing, because most vaxxed people don't get sick from covid. In many areas routine testing and testing after known covid exposure is no longer performed on vaccinated people.

As for the doctor, I hope her patients have a better doctor they can visit. The precedent is concerning, especially for those who cannot get the vaccine.

Any time I go to the doctor, except for a wellness visit, it's because I have symptoms that need to be assessed in person.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Danaus29 said:


> The vaccine protects against serious illness, hospitalization and death. We don't know the percent of breakthrough cases, which are increasing, because most vaxxed people don't get sick from covid. In many areas routine testing and testing after known covid exposure is no longer performed on vaccinated people.
> 
> As for the doctor, I hope her patients have a better doctor they can visit. The precedent is concerning, especially for those who cannot get the vaccine.
> 
> Any time I go to the doctor, except for a wellness visit, it's because I have sympyoms that need to be assessed in person.


It is NOT a vaccine. When they develop a real vaccine in the West, I'll take it. BTW: Why is China the only nation with real vaccines?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I agree, when they make a traditional vaccine I'll sign up.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Johnson and Jonson is made in “traditional” way I thought and I would consider as a “real” vaccine. 

The new mRNA “vaccines” seem to be working from the information thats out.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Redlands Okie said:


> Johnson and Jonson is made in “traditional” way I thought and I would consider as a “real” vaccine.
> 
> The new mRNA “vaccines” seem to be working from the information thats out.


J&J just uses 'traditional' dead flu virus material to deliver the mRNA genetic engineering. Close, but no cigar.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I tried to sign up for J&J but only ONE store has it and they won't let me get it because of a season change sore throat. 

It's not an mRNA but it's not a traditional vaccine.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I am reading that Johnson and Johnson product delivers DNA to provide the reaction needed, not mRNA.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

J&J uses covid DNA inserted into a cold virus for the vaccine. A genetically modified cold virus. Not ideal, not sure if it is better than another case of covid.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

wr said:


> I think it’s not reasonable because medical care is an essential service.


Define an "essential service" please. Does that mean you think the polis can force me to provide care? Is health care a "right!"?



wr said:


> I also think it would be unreasonable if a doctor refused to accept obese patients or someone with addiction issues.


Agreed. In exchange for enormous societal benefits (pay, prestige, etc et al) physicians (and the rest of us) are expected to treat everyone to the best of their ability.



Lisa in WA said:


> Obesity doesn’t have an impact on doctors and staff.


You must not be around healthcare very much. Most of us have bad backs from lifting/transferring/moving obese patients. 



no really said:


> Seems to be a bit of virtue signaling.


The hallmark of the leftist/media/academia



barnbilder said:


> Pfizer might cancel the check if she doesn't institute the rule.


This is not reality. We can't even accept the gift of a PEN from a drug rep (although they can somehow skirt those rules and buy catered lunch for an entire staff of a practice). Some docs do get money from pharma for helping with research (reasonable) or doing talks (also reasonable), but docs (and the rest of us) can't get money (or gifts) from pharma (or anyone else) for things like prescribing drugs. I believe if this doc gets any money from a vaccine producing company it would quickly result in an audit and more trouble than imaginable. I could be wrong.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Vjk said:


> Do these vaxlovers require the flu vax? That is a far deadlier disease than Wuflu.


No, no it's not. About 60K Americans die of influenza every year. There were about 300,000 EXTRA deaths last year contributable to COVID (Wuflu)



painterswife said:


> Maybe she is not terrified but follow best medical practices for her patients


While family practice is not my specialty, I have seen no evidence that this is "best medical practices".



Lisa in WA said:


> doctors are not obligated to see patients for whatever reason other than discrimination against protected classes


Except for US emergency physicians/providers who are forced to follow the EMTALA laws. We have to see any patient, for whatever reason, and at least give them a medical screening exam.



JeffreyD said:


> Can you provide proof that she hasn't done any harm to anyone? Bet you can't!


Can you provide proof that you did NOT kill Colonal Mustard in the library with the candlestick?

Learning point (if you are ameniable) - never ask to someone to prove a negative. It's just rude, and proves your ignorance of logic.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> You still haven't given an example of a protected class. Which ethnic group, racial group, or which religion?


You are being intentionally obtuse. The 7 federally protected classes: *race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation, or gender identity), disability, and familial status. *Additionally, for employment, there are additional class protections: age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

boatswain2PA said:


> Define an "essential service" please. Does that mean you think the polis can force me to provide care? Is health care a "right!"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In my country, medical care is expected and while I do not believe the police should enforce I do believe that any doctor who refuses to treat a patient should see exactly the same punishment as those who spoke openly about some of the symptoms their patients were experiencing after vaccination. 

Course of action for those who spoke publicly regarding side effects requiring hospitalization were, official reprimand (which is public record) and those that required a second discussion, lost their right to work in ER for increasing periods of time.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

colourfastt said:


> You are being intentionally obtuse. The 7 federally protected classes: *race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation, or gender identity), disability, and familial status. *Additionally, for employment, there are additional class protections: age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).


None of the examples you have given constitutes a class, Using the example you provided no one could ever be turned away, and that is simply not the case. A private provider does not have to take anyone on as a patient if they don't choose too do so, "We are not taking on new patients". In an emergency they must provide care and attempt to stabilize the patient until the ambulance arrives.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Riverdale said:


> And if a doctor takes government money, yes, they are the same


What if the doctor or provider is in private practice and does not take government money. We take barter, cash, and a few insurance companies. We have never used grant money, and do not accept Medicare.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

wr said:


> I do believe that any doctor who refuses to treat a patient should see exactly the same punishment as those who spoke openly about some of the symptoms their patients were experiencing after vaccination.
> 
> Course of action for those who spoke publicly regarding side effects requiring hospitalization were, official reprimand (which is public record) and those that required a second discussion, lost their right to work in ER for increasing periods of time.


both of those extremes are stupid. Utterly stupid, and would simply drive doctors away from practice. There are already too many stupid people running healthcare, this would just make it worse.

People who say that health care is "essential" or a "right" are unable to give an adequate definition of "healthcare". "Healthcare is a right" is just a term used by people who are controlled by their emotions and lack the ability to understand the consequences of a society driven by emotions.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Does anyone here actually think this doctor should HAVE to see in person unvaccinated patients?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm not sure I would want to use a doctor who is being forced to treat me.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

We have had patients show up who do not bathe on a regular basis or at all. They are told to bathe before an appointment, if they show up and have not bathed we ask them to leave. Once they have been asked to leave, they will not be given another appointment.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

deleted double post


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Lisa in WA said:


> Does anyone here actually think this doctor should HAVE to see in person unvaccinated patients?


I have no interest in the how American doctors conduct business but I would expect doctors in my own country to see unvaccinated patients. I have complete understanding for doctors not wanting symptomatic patients in their office but I still hold great concern for those who actually can't be vaccinated (medical exemptions and ineligible youth) and don't feel Zoom or app consultations are quality medical care. 

I do feel they work fine for some things such as renewing prescriptions but they don't work well at all in other cases. 

Our doctors have used it quite a bit throughout the pandemic and I've seen some pretty epic fails, simply because doctors weren't able to clearly see patient concerns.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If health care workers in Canada can be required to be vaccinated( if they are able) then it is not a leap to require patients to be vaccinated as well.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

boatswain2PA said:


> both of those extremes are stupid. Utterly stupid, and would simply drive doctors away from practice. There are already too many stupid people running healthcare, this would just make it worse.
> 
> People who say that health care is "essential" or a "right" are unable to give an adequate definition of "healthcare". "Healthcare is a right" is just a term used by people who are controlled by their emotions and lack the ability to understand the consequences of a society who a


I don't feel my thoughts are controlled by my emotions at all. Our healthcare is paid by public funds and if the public is required to pay, I can't see why the public is not entitled to utilize services. 

Vaccinations are not mandatory at this time and while I feel strongly enough to have vaccinated, I struggle with the idea that @ 13% of the population in my province is legally unable to vaccinate and while they aren't paying into our system, their parents are and they should have access to the same quality medical care as everyone else in the province. 

The down side to medical care in my province is quite simple, if doctors refuse to see unvaccinated patients, people will just show up at ER and waste more public funds, as well as creating an additional burden.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> If health care workers in Canada can be required to be vaccinated( if they are able) then it is not a leap to require patients to be vaccinated as well.


That's not working as well as you'd like but there is still a fairly signifcant number of patients that can't legally vacinate. Do they deserve no care?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> That's not working as well as you'd like but there is still a fairly signifcant number of patients that can't legally vacinate. Do they deserve no care?


Are you ignoring that I said those that can get vaccinated?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> *I don't feel my thoughts are controlled by my emotions at all. Our healthcare is paid by public funds and if the public is required to pay, I can't see why the public is not entitled to utilize services. *
> 
> Vaccinations are not mandatory at this time and while I feel strongly enough to have vaccinated, I struggle with the idea that @ 13% of the population in my province is legally unable to vaccinate and while they aren't paying into our system, their parents are and they should have access to the same quality medical care as everyone else in the province.
> 
> The down side to medical care in my province is quite simple, if doctors refuse to see unvaccinated patients, people will just show up at ER and waste more public funds, as well as creating an additional burden.


Doctors don't get paid if they don't provide services in Canada. They are also independent contractors who are not required to provide services to anyone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Are you ignoring that I said those that can get vaccinated?


No, I asked what your plans were for those that can't legally be vaccinated. It's something that needs to be addressed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> No, I asked what your plans were for those that can't legally be vaccinated. It's something that needs to be addressed.


There are already plans for that with the doctor in the OP. I expect that will happen with any doctor. She is not denying service. She is providing an alternative and making exceptions for those that can not be vaccinated. You keep posting like that is not a fact or has not been previously addressed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> There are already plans for that with the doctor in the OP. I expect that will happen with any doctor. She is not denying service. She is providing an alternative and making exceptions for those that can not be vaccinated. You keep posting like that is not a fact or has not been previously addressed.


I'm not unaware that the doctor is providing cut rate service for unvaccinated people. I'm asking you if you feel children deserve less quality medical care because they legally can't be vaccinated? 

If a doctor can properly diagnose patients remotely, it would have consistently been done long before now and as I've stated multiple times, I've seen some pretty epic fails from those remote diagnosis. 

Perhaps you can explain how a doctor can remotely perform routine, hands on checks that are done at appointments? Mine doesn't seem to check blood pressure, perform the cold stethescope check remotely but he only uses the service the same way he used the telephone previously.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I'm not unaware that the doctor is providing cut rate service for unvaccinated people. I'm asking you if you feel children deserve less quality medical care because they legally can't be vaccinated?
> 
> If a doctor can properly diagnose patients remotely, it would have consistently been done long before now and as I've stated multiple times, I've seen some pretty epic fails from those remote diagnosis.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how a doctor can remotely perform routine, hands on checks that are done at appointments? Mine doesn't seem to check blood pressure, perform the cold stethescope check remotely but he only uses the service the same way he used the telephone previously.


Please read what the doctor said.

She will make alternative arrangements for those that can't get vaccinated. You don't know what this arrangements are or if they are inferior or less than but you keep implying they are.

Doctors do routinely diagnose remotely and have been for decades. I guess you have not spent any time in a remote Canadian community in the Northwest. They do a good job. I have family and friends that are alive because of remotely diagnosis.

Doctor's also fail when actually seeing a patient in person. If a patient does not trust this doctor and won't get vaccinated, they can move on to a doctor that will see them. The doc has already said she will find a way wit patients that can not be vaccinated. 

In the end she alone is the authority of what is best for her practice and if you don't trust a doctor to make those decisions then you should not be one of their patients. They are independent providers and their practice is run how they want it run.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Please read what the doctor said.
> 
> She will make alternative arrangements for those that can't get vaccinated. You don't know what this arrangements are or if they are inferior or less than but you keep implying they are.
> 
> Doctors do routinely diagnose remotely and have been for decades. I guess you have not spent any time in a remote Canadian community in the Northwest. They do a good job. I have family and friends that are alive because of remotely diagnosis.


I know quite a bit about remote communities as well and have family who found it an epic fail. 

I can also offer countless examples of astute doctors detecting illnesses before their patients had any inkling of a problem.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> I'm not sure I would want to use a doctor who is being forced to treat me.


I’m sure that I wouldn’t.

I wouldn’t want an unwilling baker to make me a cake, an unwilling waiter to serve me food, or an unwilling bureaucrat to give me a license for anything.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I know quite a bit about remote communities as well and have family who found it an epic fail.
> 
> I can also offer countless examples of astute doctors detecting illnesses before their patients had any inkling of a problem.


So you either trust your doctor to do what is best or you find another one. The doctor has to decide what is best for the practice and the people they are trying to protect.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> So you either trust your doctor to do what is best or you find another one. The doctor has to decide what is best for the practice and the people they are trying to protect.


Anyone who trusts a doctor is an idiot. Period. Do your due diligence and fact-check everything a doctor tells you. I I went into the USAF as a medic. When the jackass assistant hospital administrator (a pediatrician) tried to kill a young woman, the nurses wouldn't do krappe, so I called the Gyn doc at home. He called the ER and told them to get the ambulance prepped to go to the civilian hospital. He showed up in his pajamas and took her to the civilian hospital in Mesa AZ. Then the little prick pedo tried to court-martial me. Luckily, the Gyn doc stood up for me. He also might have let it slip that my wife's godfather was a 4**** General and Comptroller of the Air Force. Anyway, I learned early on a lot of 'doctor's' are just plain quacks. Just watch Grey's Anatomy for proof. I hate doctors. Almost as much as lawyers. But not as much as Commucrats. Though I repeat myself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vjk said:


> Anyone who trusts a doctor is an idiot. Period. Do your due diligence and fact-check everything a doctor tells you. I I went into the USAF as a medic. When the jackass assistant hospital administrator (a pediatrician) tried to kill a young woman, the nurses wouldn't do krappe, so I called the Gyn doc at home. He called the ER and told them to get the ambulance prepped to go to the civilian hospital. He showed up in his pajamas and took her to the civilian hospital in Mesa AZ. Then the little prick pedo tried to court-martial me. Luckily, the Gyn doc stood up for me. He also might have let it slip that my wife's godfather was a 4**** General and Comptroller of the Air Force. Anyway, I learned early on a lot of 'doctor's' are just plain quacks. Just watch Grey's Anatomy for proof. I hate doctors. Almost as much as lawyers. But not as much as Commucrats. Though I repeat myself.


Lots of people trust their doctors and they are not idiots, so I find your statement false.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Lots of people trust their doctors and they are not idiots,* so I find your statement false*.


Which part?
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.









The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about


More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Lots of people trust their doctors and they are not idiots, so I find your statement false.


I couldn't care less.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> If health care workers in Canada can be required to be vaccinated( if they are able) then it is not a leap to require patients to be vaccinated as well.





painterswife said:


> Are you ignoring that I said those that can get vaccinated?


I missed it because you didn't say "those that can get vaccinated" regarding patients.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> Which part?
> Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.


Not since covid


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

From the link in the OP. 


Marraccini wrote that her practice will “no longer subject our patients and staff to unnecessary risk.”


What unnecessary risk ? Unvaccinated and vaccinated both carry and spread covid. Is there some other risk ?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

wr said:


> don't feel my thoughts are controlled by my emotions at all. Our healthcare is paid by public funds and if the public is required to pay, I can't see why the public is not entitled to utilize services.


And you haven't said (to my knowledge) that "healthcare is a right!". If I recall correctly you said healthcare is essential.

But you didn't define healthcare, and you didn't define essential. 

I don't have a problem with the public using a taxpayer funded service. Whether we ration healthcare through ability to pay, through long lines, or government approval lists...it's going to get rationed.




wr said:


> accinations are not mandatory at this time and while I feel strongly enough to have vaccinated, I struggle with the idea that @ 13% of the population in my province is legally unable to vaccinate


Which population group are you referring to who are "legally unable to vaccinate". children??


----------



## jr23 (Sep 3, 2013)

kinderfeld said:


> Which part?
> Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
> 
> 
> ...


and a very significant portion of patients either don't do what was prescribes, don't take meds or take too much of the meds. lot of blame to go around .


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

A lot of cases where patients don't take their medication is because they can't afford their medication.









Americans are skipping medically necessary prescriptions because of the cost


For many Americans, the cost of regularly taking and filling their medications is too much. So much so, 44% of respondents in a new online poll say that within the last year, they did not purchase at least one medically necessary prescription because of cost.




www.cnbc.com





And then you have people who have a bad reaction to their medication but the doctor keeps prescribing the same medicine. Or doctors change medications that are working well because they get drug company bonuses for the new medication. And don't forget about insurance companies refusing to cover certain medications which then makes those medications unaffordable for the patient.

In addition to those problems you have people who simply forget to take their medication. They may have a memory problem or they are mentally incapable of understanding the need to take their medication.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Danaus29 said:


> Or doctors change medications that are working well because they get drug company bonuses for the new medication.


I dont have time to keep up with the bull excrement spread around here...

Docs, PAs, and NPs cannot get any compensation from drug companies for prescribing their medication. I cant even be gifted a TEN CENT PEN from a drug rep because some idjit guvment bureaucrat has declared that it might change my prescribing habit to prescribe that drug.

Drug companies CAN (and frequently do) provide a "free meal" to medical staff (including prescribers) as they talk to the staff about the wonderous new drug that works a smidge better than the competition on certain populations. And of course drug companies can hire prescribers to push their product, but this must be disclosed.

Anyone want to pay me? Bueller? Bueller??

There are no "bonuses" as you described. If you think you know of any then please report such to the DOJ and your state medical board.

Otherwise stop spreading falsehoods.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

boatswain2PA said:


> And of course drug companies can hire prescribers to push their product, but this must be disclosed.


How does that work in your experience?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

boatswain2PA said:


> Docs, PAs, and NPs cannot get any compensation from drug companies for prescribing their medication. I cant even be gifted a TEN CENT PEN from a drug rep because some idjit guvment bureaucrat has declared that it might change my prescribing habit to prescribe that drug.
> 
> Otherwise stop spreading falsehoods.


My google-fu must not be working today because I can't find any law or statute prohibiting gifts from drug reps. These sites that state there is no such law are all I could find.









A physician’s guide to acceptable pharma swag | MDLinx


Pharma swag isn’t necessarily free.




www.mdlinx.com









__





The Physician Payments Sunshine Act | Health Affairs Brief


New regulations require medical product manufacturers to publicly report payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals.



www.healthaffairs.org





In fact you can use this site to search your doctor to see how much they get from drug company reps. The data is good only through December 2020.





__





Home | Open Payments Data - CMS







openpaymentsdata.cms.gov





This is how much Pfizer gave out last year





__





Open Payments Data - CMS







openpaymentsdata.cms.gov


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

jr23 said:


> and a very significant portion of patients either don't do what was prescribes, don't take meds or take too much of the meds. lot of blame to go around .


True. But, this has nothing to do with what I said and what I was responding to. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country. This his has a tendency to cause mistrust in the industry.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> kinderfeld said:
> 
> 
> > Which part?
> ...


Yeah. It’s probably #1 now.
All the doctors who refused to treat with hydroxychloroquine, or ivermectin, because… reasons. Those deaths are medical error. The infected seniors stuffed into nursing homes with no testing, to respect “medical privacy” before a vaccine passport was rightthink; medical errors. They told us not to wear masks… before they told us we had to wear two… so they could have them all- medical error.

*Hitler*: _I have a solution!_
*Stalin*: _Amateur. Watch this!_
*Doctors of the World*: _Hold my beer. Wait, let me finish this TickTock dance routine. Now. Ready?_


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

boatswain2PA said:


> I dont have time to keep up with the bull excrement spread around here...
> 
> Docs, PAs, and NPs cannot get any compensation from drug companies for prescribing their medication. I cant even be gifted a TEN CENT PEN from a drug rep because some idjit guvment bureaucrat has declared that it might change my prescribing habit to prescribe that drug.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and it's against the law to sell crystal meth too.


----------

