Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each state has guidelines and action by the individual state boards which is at their discretion and pleasure. They can deny anyone they want based on medical training, past history, or discipline from another board.
Of course they cannot deny anyone a license for sex, age, ethnic background, religious beliefs, ect.... They can deny individuals who do not have the physical or mental capabilities to conduct a practice of medicine safely. However, IT IS THE RIGHT OF EACH STATE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHO RECIEVES AND WHO DOES NOT RECEIVE A STATE LICENSE. It is a state license, not a federal license, and the feds have no influence over that aspect of medicine. They do have power over your federal DEA and determining whether you are a medicare provider or not.
I have not heard of the Feds intervening in a situation of state licensure, nor would I imagine a scenario in which they would want to get involved with state licensure.
But, states often have laws and practices that are challenged as unconstitutional. I dont know why this would be any different, assuming this resident was willing to fight it to that extent.
1. deviation from the standard of care: a complication that results from normal practice actions is not malpractice. Medicine is not 100% safe or devoid of complications.
2. An injury has occurred. You can have a situation in which an error occurred, but there is no injury- that is not malpractice. I have seen a radiograph in which a needle was placed "through and through" the cervical cord with no adverse effect at all on the patient, thus no malpractice.
3. There is a measureable economic adverse effect on the patient due to the error. If someone has a medical/surgical treatment in which there was an error and injury, but no measureable effect on the patient's daily life or ability to sustain themselves, there is no malpractice.
Although a little more thorough, I think you are agreeing with my post here?
She is of Palestinian heritage and was posting some very questionable things about purposefully giving Jewish patients the wrong medications. Should she have her license to practice medicine revoked?
You're asking if anyone believes a doctor who intentionally prescribes the wrong medicine should have their license removed. Not only should they be barred from practicing they should be sued personally and arrested publicly.
There is no gray area on this. She is proposing criminal behavior based solely on her hate for Jews.
The semantics of what defines malpractice is based on unintended consequences while this doctor is clearly defining her intentional actions.
She is breaking her Hippocratic oath to do no harm.
Although a little more thorough, I think you are agreeing with my post here?
She did not engage in malpractice, as there was a "threat", but no medical action, no injury, and no damages.
All medical licenses are contingent on considerations other than malpractice, such as ethical violations and committing other activities (crimes) not in the realm of medical practice.
Therefore, this is a gross ethical violation; there was no crime and no malpractice. If a board should revoke her license for her actions, there would be nothing that the Feds could do to restore it- nothing. The State Board would not have violated her rights or discriminated against her in any fashion. They would simply be invoking the ethical requirements of the board.
As you have noted, she is unemployable, as no medical practice would assume the risk for having her on staff. In the event of an adverse outcome (particularly for a Christian or Jew), a plaintiff's lawyer would have a field day.
She did not engage in malpractice, as there was a "threat", but no medical action, no injury, and no damages.
All medical licenses are contingent on considerations other than malpractice, such as ethical violations and committing other activities (crimes) not in the realm of medical practice.
Therefore, this is a gross ethical violation; there was no crime and no malpractice. If a board should revoke her license for her actions, there would be nothing that the Feds could do to restore it- nothing. The State Board would not have violated her rights or discriminated against her in any fashion. They would simply be invoking the ethical requirements of the board.
As you have noted, she is unemployable, as no medical practice would assume the risk for having her on staff. In the event of an adverse outcome (particularly for a Christian or Jew), a plaintiff's lawyer would have a field day.
I thought in the scenario we were discussing, there was injury. The other poster and I weren’t just talking about the threat alone. We were talking about if there was injury. How it would be perceived in light of her past statements.
Her acceptance into the Cleveland Medical Clinic Hospital residency programs suggests her professional credentials were better than the average MD.
She was in the CC residency program for 2 months before her social media DNA caught up with her. Can’t imagine another hospital being willing to give her a second chance.
Maybe a Muslim owned hospital. Or she can return to Judea and Samaria and work there.
Or this kind of thing might be acceptable in a a few years if Rashida Tlaib gains more influence with the left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
