Originally Posted by
Peter
While patients generally do have the right to select a health care provider and make decisions about their medical treatment, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to accommodate a request that would infringe on the rights of others or that would endanger patient health and safety. A patient's limited right to legally discriminate does not require anyone else to illegally discriminate.
Yes, there are still quite a few people who select their doctors and other healthcare providers on the basis of criteria (such as race, religion, nationality, age, sex, gender and sexual orientation) that could not be legally considered in many other settings. Allowing the communication of such requests should not result in others being required to illegally discriminate or to endanger patient health and safety. I also think health care facilities should have a right to limit the time, place and manner for the communication of such requests on their private property. It also makes sense to penalize facilities that accommodate such requests just as we would if they accommodated a request from a patient or anyone else to do anything else illegal.
Even ignoring any moral and ethical concerns, discrimination is generally bad for business. Management and staffing is difficult enough without adding the burden of developing the logistical procedures and business processes to accommodate individual requests for illegal discrimination and developing a system to hide the accomodations. When that system fails (as it almost inevitably will), legal costs and judgments can result in liabilities that will bankrupt a company; negative publicity can dramatically reduce revenue and it often increases staff turnover and decreases staff morale. Successful claims will often result in the increase of liability and malpractice insurance premiums not only for the facility itself but those practicing there. There can also be resulting Workers' Compensation claims that increases Workers' Compensation insurance premiums (or increases other costs if self-insured). The funds to cover these additional costs have to come from somewhere and regardless of where they come from (profits or budget cuts), a group of people will be economically harmed. If resulting budget cuts directly affect patient health and safety, the result could be non-economic harm that could result in exponentially higher liability. This would be in addition to the direct harm to patient and staff safety and health that might be caused by accommodate an illegal discrimination request.