Maybe you missed page two of the first article.
Maybe you missed that in a previous post I quoted from the same passage you did. Not sure it that means you're not careful, or you're trending to sarcasm.
The doctor all but point blank states that she was let go due to their lack of trust and her failure to answer the question.
For your scenario to be true, the doctor did not present the truthful reason for letting her go.
Absolutely wrong on your part. What could better demonstrate a lack of trust than the fact that the patient has threatened to sue? At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become adversarial, and should NOT be continued.
If the threat of suit was most or part of the reason that the doc discharged the patient, it would certainly be true that a lack of trust exists. So the doc did present a truthful reason, in "my scenario."
Why do you imply that she lacks credibility?
She is speaking at her own volition to a news source; heck, she may have called them herself (with or without having spoken to her lawyer first). I should perhaps therefore assume her goal is to give as unbiased a view of the events as she possibly can--portraying her actions correctly, warts and all? Or should I instead assume that she has (unintentionally or intentionally) slanted the facts a tad in her favor?
You can believe what you want. I have already stated (as you pointed out) the doc may be trying to paint himself in a good light by not mentioning her threat as an additional reason for dismissing the patient. If I have doubts about the doc's account, why should I not also have doubts about the mother's account? (Or about anything I read in a newspaper?)
A clear boundary violation being conducted on behalf of "HEALTH CARE."
Absolutely not. "
Boundary violation" has a very specific meaning in medical care, and Wheeler's incorrect hijacking of the term is disingenuous at best.
In contrast to Wheeler's opinion stand the opinions of countless medical schools and medical organizations--exactly the type of organizations that in aggregate decide what medical professional standards (and boundaries) are. True: Wheeler's opinion is, while fringe, still a valid individual opinion, yet his contortion of the term hurts his argument.
Do doctors require you answer if you own a car before they give you child safety seat advice?
Maybe, since most people drive to his office, he assumes they have a car?
I'll also bet these "contracts" don't provide relief for the patient for *anything* the doctor may do wrong.
Why should they? The malpractice courts exist for that very thing!
The whole idea of such a contract is so laughable that it really brings the intelligence of the doctor into question.
No. One of the current complaints about American medicine is the passiveness of the patients: they
are treated, they
receive medications, they
are scheduled for tests. And that passiveness is usually blamed, you guessed it, on the doctors.
How about getting a patient actively engaged in his health care? How about a patient who actually changes his diet? Who quits smoking? Who begins and sticks with an exercise program? Sure,
some do, but most do not. Contracts are used as a way of communicating to patients: "This stuff is serious--it is NOT optional for good health."
And what about a patient who begins to store a gun more safely?