How should a Doctor be allowed to quit from a Hospital.

[lawtonfogle]

If the hospital is understaffed, should the Doctor be legally required to work until he can be replaced. Should he be required to give a x number of days notice to give the hospital time to find a replacement? Can he just up and quit assuming he isn't in the middle of taking care of a patient? Should the law allow him to up and quit even with a patient in a critical situation?


On this scale, I think few would agree with the last one, but the other three I'm not sure what most people think should be the law (or even what is the law). I personally vote for the second option.

In effect I am asking a bigger question, which is this. How should the law work concerning keeping a person in a 'critical' job? Critical here is things which are needed for society to run, so not wal-mart, but yes fire-department.

 

[exxxys]

If the hospital is understaffed, should the Doctor be legally required to work until he can be replaced. Should he be required to give a x number of days notice to give the hospital time to find a replacement? Can he just up and quit assuming he isn't in the middle of taking care of a patient? Should the law allow him to up and quit even with a patient in a critical situation?


On this scale, I think few would agree with the last one, but the other three I'm not sure what most people think should be the law (or even what is the law). I personally vote for the second option.

In effect I am asking a bigger question, which is this. How should the law work concerning keeping a person in a 'critical' job? Critical here is things which are needed for society to run, so not wal-mart, but yes fire-department.

I think that unless he/she has an incredibly good reason, they should have to work until they find a suitable replacement. There are not nearly enough doctors to cater to the public.

 

[suzybeezy]

I think the hippocratic oath would factor into a doctors method to leave a hopital, to ensure due diligence is adhered to.

 

[Athene]

IMO adequate notice should be given so the hospital, fire department etc would have sufficient time to advertise the opening and interview applicants. I don't work in either of those fields so I don't know how much time 'enough' would be.

 

[keith99]

If the hospital is understaffed, should the Doctor be legally required to work until he can be replaced. Should he be required to give a x number of days notice to give the hospital time to find a replacement? Can he just up and quit assuming he isn't in the middle of taking care of a patient? Should the law allow him to up and quit even with a patient in a critical situation?


On this scale, I think few would agree with the last one, but the other three I'm not sure what most people think should be the law (or even what is the law). I personally vote for the second option.

In effect I am asking a bigger question, which is this. How should the law work concerning keeping a person in a 'critical' job? Critical here is things which are needed for society to run, so not wal-mart, but yes fire-department.

Simply put requiring someone to work after tehy want to quit has a name....

Slavery.

Last I heard that was abolished in the U.S. and any civilized country.

Professional standards usually expect 2 weeks notice and contracts may specify more, but the contract can not require work, just specify expectation or establish financial penalties.

It is not an employee's job to do staffing for their employeer, that is just as true for hospitals as Walmart.

 

[cantata]

Most people's contracts require them to give notice before they leave. If they're willing to forfeit unpaid wages, however, I'm pretty sure they can leave when they like.

To be honest, it doesn't matter what someone's job is. Their labour is their own, and no one should be able to force them to work.

 

[SallyNow]

Simply put requiring someone to work after tehy want to quit has a name....

Slavery.

Last I heard that was abolished in the U.S. and any civilized country.

Professional standards usually expect 2 weeks notice and contracts may specify more, but the contract can not require work, just specify expectation or establish financial penalties.

It is not an employee's job to do staffing for their employeer, that is just as true for hospitals as Walmart.

Requiring someone to work after they have quit can also have another name - contractual obligations.

If someone isn't going to fulfill the contract they have signed, and there is no overwhelming reason that they can not fulfill the contract, then they must either fulfill it or face the consequences.

A doctor who ups and quits while working on a patient (ie, in the middle of surgery) would be in for a malpractice suit and possibly losing their licence. Like it or not, quitting in the middle of a Wal-Mart shift is simply not as important as quitting in the middle of a shift at a hospital when there are patients needing treatment.

Walking out of a Wal-Mart shift would be rude and annoying, but it would not be life-threatening. Walking out of a shift at a hospital could kill people.

A doctor has the responsiblity to treat patients he or she takes on with outmost care, and to fulfull contractual obligations. If he or she chooses to quit then he or she must give notice as specified in the contract. If not, he or she could be up for legal consequences.

Laws should focus on ensuring that there are enough doctors to give the necessary care rather than on focusing on forcing doctors who want to leave the profession to stay.

 

[billwald]

I think that being forced to work against one's will is slavery.

 

[stan1980]

Normally, your notice period is defined in your contract. I have no idea about doctors, but for most firms it is standard practice that they ask 1 month notice. I have had to do 3 months notice due to the nature of, to put it technically, no one else having a damn clue what I was doing. In theory, I could have walked away earlier, but I couldn't have expected a reference in the future as I'd agreed to 3 months. So to sum it up, if you want a reference, do the notice that was agreed.

 

[wanderingone]

People can quit whenever they want to-facing legal issues as a result is a different issue. I don't think a doctor is any different, and honestly- I'd rather a doctor who doesn't want to be there isn't the one doing my surgery.

 

[Beanieboy]

Someone who works at a hospital can't just walk off the job without a notice, anymore than a Corp Exec can, which does not effect life and death. You are always required to give notice, and leaving without notice will make the person have a reputation for being irresponsible, and probably come back to them when they seek new employment.

However, if a hospital is understaffed, it is not the fault of the doctor, but of the hospital hiring department. One can't demand the doctor to stay past the given notice, because it is not the doctor that would be putting the patients at risk, but the Hospital HR, whose main responsibility is hiring and maintaining staff. Blame should not be pointed at the employee, but the poor management of the Employer.

Even if i were to be a manager at McDonald's, and to cut costs, only scheduled two or three people to serve and cook food during rush hour, making the appearance that the workers aren't giving good service because of the impossible work they are expected to perform in a short amount of time that usually requires 8 people, can I blame my worker, who one day says, "that's it! This is NOT worth it!" and walks off?

Or it is it the result of really bad management, and that is who should accept responsiblity.

 

[SallyNow]

Can someone explain to be how someone sticking to a contract that they, out of their own free will, with no coercion, no extenuating circumstances, no life-or-death threats, no economic threats, etc, signed, is slavery?

If a doctor chooses to sign on to a contract and then finds the hospital is understaffed they need to get their union/profesional organization rep to lobby for better hiring practices by the hospital. They could even do other lawful things to create change and better working conditions.

But, unless there are extenuating circumstances, they should follow throw with the contract or face whatever reprocussions (if any) are laid out in the contract.

 

[Beanieboy]

Weren't slaves paid $200K a year?

 

[cantata]

SallyNow, no one's saying that there shouldn't be contractual obligations to work notice, but the OP suggested that doctors could be required by law to work out their notice, or even to keep working until a replacement is found. This is unacceptable. If a doctor is contractually obliged to work out her notice, she can still quit and forfeit references, remaining salary, &c. If she were required by law to continue working, this option would not be available to her.

(How locking up "deserting" doctors would do anyone any good is another matter, of course.)

 

[Beanieboy]

The problem with trying to make a law requiring that doctors continue working, past their contract, past their given notice, again, puts the responsibility on the doctors, who have no control over hiring a replacement, and puts none of the responsibility on Hospital Administration, who is responsible for hires.

The doctor, then, could work for a year past his given notice, if HR was completely incompetent, or slow in finding a replacement because their is no pressure or responsibilty on them. I think that it is unethical to hold doctors legally hostage past their given contracts and notices, when it is not the incompetence of the doctors that is the problem. If anything, should HR insist that a doctor not be able to leave (preventing him/her from going to another hospital, and putting the health of that community at jeopardy), then HR should be penalized by legally being obligated to compensate the doctor in higher wages, rewarding the doctors for going beyond agreed obligation, and penalizing the Administration for failing to keep their end of the contract. The longer the doctor is asked to stay, the higher the wages should go.

Perhaps that would motivate HR to actually do their job and hire more staff.

 

[wanderingone]

Can someone explain to be how someone sticking to a contract that they, out of their own free will, with no coercion, no extenuating circumstances, no life-or-death threats, no economic threats, etc, signed, is slavery?

If a doctor chooses to sign on to a contract and then finds the hospital is understaffed they need to get their union/profesional organization rep to lobby for better hiring practices by the hospital. They could even do other lawful things to create change and better working conditions.

But, unless there are extenuating circumstances, they should follow throw with the contract or face whatever reprocussions (if any) are laid out in the contract.

I don't consider a doctor any different than any other employee when it comes to contractual obligations. Signing a contract does not mean you cannot choose to break it, it just means that there will be repurcussions should the contract be broken, usually they are financial- and certainly it could impact future opportunities, but no matter what the contract if an employee decides today they will not work another day then they are free to go.

It might not be an ethical decision on the part of the doctor but how exactly would one force a doctor to stay in a job they've decided to leave?
Restrain them, consider some type of criminal charges? These things don't seem to me a way to avoid the loss of medical professionals.

 

[Washington]

It's up to the hospital or whatever the employing agency may be to make sure none of its staff is indispensable. If a contract is broken then whatever remedial actions or penalties that are outlined in that contract should be placed in effect.

 

[SallyNow]

I don't consider a doctor any different than any other employee when it comes to contractual obligations. Signing a contract does not mean you cannot choose to break it, it just means that there will be repurcussions should the contract be broken, usually they are financial- and certainly it could impact future opportunities, but no matter what the contract if an employee decides today they will not work another day then they are free to go.

It might not be an ethical decision on the part of the doctor but how exactly would one force a doctor to stay in a job they've decided to leave?
Restrain them, consider some type of criminal charges? These things don't seem to me a way to avoid the loss of medical professionals.

I'm not suggesting any doctor be forced to work against their will. I'm saying that doctors are, like other professionals, required to finish their contract, change it legally, or forfiet whatever is forfieted according to the contract.

Doctors have the added responsibility that they can not just walk out whenever they please - they can't just leave a patient on the surgical table without a) finding a replacement or b) finishing the surgery. This isn't any different from a teacher, who can't just walk away during the middle of a field trip while being responsible for 30 minors.

If a doctor chooses to walk out of the job with no notice they are free to do so. However, they will have to deal with their legal obligations as per their contract.

Nowhere did I suggest that doctors should be forced to work against their will. However, I did suggest that there are better ways of dealing with understaffing, such as contacting their professional organization, discussing the problem with the hospital execs, etc.

Being a doctor comes with rights, but also responsibilities. A doctor must give adquate notice; a doctor can't just walk out while performing surgery. Being a doctor is different than working at Wal-Mart in that if a doctor decides to walk out in the middle of a shift they may in fact be letting a critically-ill patient die.

Let me make this clear: I am not advocating that a doctor stay in a job they do not want to stay in. However, I am saying that they have a responsibility to not just walk out while treating patients.

More to that, if a doctor knows their hospital is understaffed, they could go to their professional organization or even to the hospital execs, explain the problem, and give the ultimatum that they will break the contract unless the hospital hires the necessary personal.

And of course, there are laws dealing with doctor's legal responsibilities and rights. Which, frankly, makes this discussion pretty hypothetical.

 

[jayem]

I actually do work for a hospital. My contract stipulates that I give 3 months notice, if I decide to leave. (And conversely, I must be given 3 months notice if my contract is not going to be renewed. Or if circumstances dictate my immediate termination, I'm entitled to 3 months salary--some unusual or egregious event excepted.)

My department is not currently understaffed, but I am in a somewhat specialized field. It might take some time to fill an open position, which would be burdensome to the remaining personnel.

 

[NPH]

If a Doctor wants to walk out the door, assuming they are not right in the middle of working on a patient, then I don't see how we can reasonably force them not to.

Of course, I don't think we can reasonably expect anyone else to have to hire them afterwards as well.

Would you really want a Doctor that just doesn't give a crap and wants to walk out the door diagnosing you? Not me.