Pennyaline wrote:
>
> On 8/12/2010 09:41, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
> > > So that gives them the right to use verbal and physical abuse, and to
> >> threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves while
> >> they're inpatients? I just don't think it does.
> > If you don't follow your customers instructions, you are at fault. Your
> > options are simple, follow their instructions or walk away, they have
> > the right to refuse you and take their business elsewhere.
>
> So you DO think they have the right to use verbal and physical abuse,
> and to threaten our jobs because we won't let them injure themselves
> while they're inpatients?

That depends on exactly what *you* are doing. Trying to force
"treatment" on someone who has clearly refused it constitutes criminal
assault, and the victim of such assault has every right to defend
themselves in any way necessary. They also have the right to have you
charged criminally for that assault.

>
> >> You must make the day of flight attendants and fast food workers
> >> everywhere, huh?
> >
> > I expect so, since I don't ask them for anything out of the ordinary,
> > and I always receive the expected service. Flight attendants and fast
> > food workers generally do not have ego issue like those in the medical
> > service industry do.
>
> Are all of your requests from health care workers within what is
> considered "ordinary" in the health care setting?

I maintain a minimum of contact with the health care industry. My only
regular contact is my allergist who is great and has no problem dealing
with me as I expect. The only remotely unusual requirement I have is my
self administered allergy shots. I work from home, and live 60 miles
from my allergist, so it's certainly not an unreasonable expectation.

My allergist has a number of patients/customers who do self administered
shots and many more who come into the office for shots. Certainly self
administered shots aren't appropriate for everyone, but that's not an
excuse to refuse them for everyone. At this point I've done about 300
shots and I'm still not dead yet, my allergies are also nonexistent now.

>
> >> Incidentally, despite the nonsensical approach to health care delivery
> >> that is in vogue right now, if a patient remains willingly noncompliant
> >> and self-injurious he or she will find insurance benefits withdrawn and
> >> will be discharged without ceremony. The facility has the right to
> >> "fire" the patient, so to speak.
> >
> > Yes, you do indeed have the right to turn away a customer, but you do
> > not have a right to force yourself on a customer as some of your ilk
> > with inflated egos seem to think.
>
> Patients have every right to refuse care as it is ordered. They do not
> have the right to alter their care arbitrarily and demand that we go
> along with it. Their insurance companies won't go along with it, either.
> It has nothing to do with ego. It's to do with why a patient was
> admitted and what they expect from hospitalization.

They have a legal and human right to terminate any treatment at any time
for any reason. The only right you have is to *ask* them to sign a
release form indicating that they know what they are doing is against
your recommendations. You do not even have a right to force them to sign
such a release form, all you can do is note in their file that they left
against recommendations.

>
> >> So to bring this back into its original
> >> context, when an airline passenger is noncompliant, belligerent,
> >> abusive, assaultive or posing a potential safety hazard on a flight, the
> >> airline should take steps to "fire" that passenger and send his or her
> >> business elsewhere for the sake of its own safe operation. Whatever the
> >> business, customers are not always right.
> >
> > Certainly if the flight attendant was actually physically assaulted by
> > the passenger, and not a case of them getting in the way when heavy
> > stuff was being moved and being accidentally hit, that is a criminal
> > matter. A doctor or nurse forcing themselves on someone who is clearly
> > refusing "treatment" is also a criminal matter.
>
> We are not allowed to force ourselves on anyone refusing treatment. If
> they refuse, we leave it alone and the event is documented. If there are
> enough documented refusals the facility will discharge them.

That part you have correct.

> They may
> not arbitrarily adjust the terms of their treatment as it suits them,

That part you have incorrect. They have the right to specify a change in
terms at any time and for any reason. If you choose not to comply with
the specified change, all you can do is terminate the treatment that
they refused and discharge them.

> just as an airline passenger may not put oversized items in overhead
> compartments, may not block the aisle, may not smoke in the bathroom,
> many not have as many drinks inflight as they damn well please, may not
> stand up and start collecting their items before the plane comes to a
> full stop... and may not abuse the crew about it.

An entirely different situation.