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

[God-free]

If the hospital is understaffed, should the Doctor be legally required to work until he can be replaced.

Legally, I would guess, no.

Should he be required to give a x number of days notice to give the hospital time to find a replacement?

He should if that's what is stipulated in his contract.

Can he just up and quit assuming he isn't in the middle of taking care of a patient?

Yes. But there would be consequences for the doctor.

Should the law allow him to up and quit even with a patient in a critical situation?

This is a tough one. Legally, I don't know if a doctor could abandon a patient in a critical situation and not be charged with some kind of crime. On the other hand, what if the doctor, while treating a critical patient, has a fatal heart attack? His patient would be in the same predicament. I think, if a doctor quits suddenly then the hospital should treat the situation the same way they would if the doctor had died suddenly.

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 don't know if the law can consider someone walking away from a 'critical' job to be a criminal offense or not. It's probably a sure thing, though, that the doctor would face some hefty, personal and professional, consequences for doing so.

~Barbara

 

[keith99]

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.

Can you expalin how a contract freely entered that specifies slavery is not slavery? The courts have correctly held that any contract specifying actual service as the remedy is in fact slavery.

Now your last paragraph is an entirely different matter. Many small communities (actually blanket organizations for such) have paid for medical school for Physicians. In return upon graduation those Physicians promise to practice in under served areas. If they do not the entire cost of their education (or perhaps prorated) becomes their debt. That is legal. Some pretty extreme financial consequences are not slavery.

 

[SallyNow]

Can you expalin how a contract freely entered that specifies slavery is not slavery? The courts have correctly held that any contract specifying actual service as the remedy is in fact slavery.

Now your last paragraph is an entirely different matter. Many small communities (actually blanket organizations for such) have paid for medical school for Physicians. In return upon graduation those Physicians promise to practice in under served areas. If they do not the entire cost of their education (or perhaps prorated) becomes their debt. That is legal. Some pretty extreme financial consequences are not slavery.

I already addressed the questions you bring up in post 18 of this thread.

 

[Braunwyn]

If a doctor ups and quits in the middle of a critical situation than obviously something is going on, if not physiologically than psychologically. S/he would certainly risk losing or having her license suspended (and being sued if something went wrong). I think that's fair. Also, most professionals have a contract with their employers and wouldn't willy nilly forgo honoring their contract unless something serious is going on. Any person willing to jeopardize her career like that probably has no business being at work let alone treating the sick.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

A doctor should abide by whatever contract he signs or, in reality, what type of ethical professional can he really be?

 

[keith99]

I already addressed the questions you bring up in post 18 of this thread.

You in no way addressed the question I asked. Perhaps it is ignorance (ignorance is not a bad word, it is not stupidity, it is simply being unaware of something).

There are people who in fact want to and have tried very hard to create a contact that would in fact make them a slave. That was their desire, it was not a by product. The courts have uniformily disallowed any such contract.

A contract that specifies damages or forfietures for quiting a job normally is found to be valid. One that specifies performance by the individual has never been (well at least since the end of slavery).

Oh of course with the exception of the Military.

Ones rights can be limited by contract. Police and firemen often have contracts that say they can not go on strike. That is different from may not quit.

 

[Braunwyn]

lawtonfogle, I'm curious about why you're asking/created this thread. Did you come across something recently that made you think of it?

 

[jcook922]

This is a pretty open-shut case, if the Doctor signs no contract, or the contract he signs doesn't have any policy regarding quitting, then he can quit as he likes and that is his choice. If the contract does have those stipulations, then breaking it means dealing with consequences.

 

[SallyNow]

If a doctor ups and quits in the middle of a critical situation than obviously something is going on, if not physiologically than psychologically. S/he would certainly risk losing or having her license suspended (and being sued if something went wrong). I think that's fair. Also, most professionals have a contract with their employers and wouldn't willy nilly forgo honoring their contract unless something serious is going on. Any person willing to jeopardize her career like that probably has no business being at work let alone treating the sick.

If a doctor has a serious mental or physical breakdown while treating a patient they need to give their cases over to another qualified professional and seek treatment. They shouldn't continue to treat patients in that state. Those sorts of cases, though, are treated on a individual basis.

You in no way addressed the question I asked. Perhaps it is ignorance (ignorance is not a bad word, it is not stupidity, it is simply being unaware of something).

No, not ignorance, just a misunderstanding. Misunderstanding is not a bad word, it simply means there's a kink in the wire between two people.

There are people who in fact want to and have tried very hard to create a contact that would in fact make them a slave. That was their desire, it was not a by product. The courts have uniformily disallowed any such contract.

As they should.

A contract that specifies damages or forfietures for quiting a job normally is found to be valid. One that specifies performance by the individual has never been (well at least since the end of slavery).

Somewhere along the line my posts became interpreted from what I was actually saying, which wa this:
Statement 1: Doctors can legally quit, but they face the consequences of doing so, and it's unethical to just leave a patient on the operating table without finding someone qualified to finish the surgery.

and it was turned into this:

Statement 2: Doctors should be forced to work.

I agree with statement 1; I do not agree with statement 2.

I'm not sure about doctors, but I do know that teachers are required to find a qualified replacement before they walk out of a classroom, leaving 30 minors alone for the day(or does this vary country to country?). That doesn't mean they can't up and quit; however, if they do not fulfill their legal responsibility, they may face the consequences both contactually and legally.

 

[Braunwyn]

If a doctor has a serious mental or physical breakdown while treating a patient they need to give their cases over to another qualified professional and seek treatment. They shouldn't continue to treat patients in that state. Those sorts of cases, though, are treated on a individual basis.

I'm guessing that most cases are dealt with on an individual basis although I think this thread is questioning whether that should be the case. We already have a system in place that works, as far as I know, unless there's been some uprising of MD's leaving their posts without rhyme or reason that I haven't heard of.

 

[sk8Joyful]

What about other Health-professionals?
Should anyone be forced to work 21-hour days, 4 days straight?
And yes, it happens today in med-schools, and many related salaried positions. -
Need you not wonder why people, in institutions needlessly die.

 

[billwald]

Didn't Lincoln's War and the following constitutional amendments free all the slaves?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Didn't Lincoln's War and the following constitutional amendments free all the slaves?

Careless institutions, and employers who could not care less, don't care.
Slavery, on several levels, is alive & well in today's sick-care industries.

 

[billwald]

People in the health industry are not allowed by force of law to leave their job? I thought only the military could enforce those sort of rules.

 

[sk8Joyful]

People in the health industry are
not allowed by force of law to leave their job?
I thought only the military could enforce those sort of rules.

the OP watered the point down, by asking about "quitting".

More on-target, would be Laws, stating a healthier provider-to-clients RATIO.
of course, this would mean industries being less$greedy, and more Humanitarian oriented.