I've known that medical doctors are not allowed to treat their own family members; however, my girlfriend is a med student and comes from a family of doctors (she'll make the fourth generation), and she tells me that not treating one's own family only came about in the last few decades - in the 1950s such was commonplace for physicians. Can anyone confirm and perhaps shed some light on the past?
2007-07-06 12:46:16 · 8 answers · asked by Alan1602 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
Oh no, I wouldn't perform surgery either! I meant regular GP family doctor treatment.
2007-07-06 13:10:55 · update #1
I am a General Surgery Resident (2nd year) and I would never dream of operating on a family member. The tradition is older than the 1950's. It has been around for eons!
2007-07-06 12:50:00 · answer #1 · answered by dct14300 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was done in the past because often the parent doctor was the nearest doctor.
There is not problem with it and it continues to this day.
The problem is when ethics get involved. What if two people's lives are to be weighed and one is a family member. Can you trust the physician to make the right choice? The ethics of the profession are to not let a doctor put itself into that position.
Doctors are held to a high ethical standard because so much of their profession is based on a split second life or death decisions. Accountants and lawyers, judges and plumbers don't have to worry about that and their is always time to re-think the decision. You can't say the same with a medical decision.
2007-07-06 13:08:56 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think many doctors treat their families for relatively simple problems. I know of no law that prohibits such treatment. There may be insurance problems if you try to prescribe for a family member, but this is not always the case.
The reason one should not treat a family member other than for the most simple and straightforward conditions is that the physician is also emotionally involved with the patient and such involvement clouds ones judgement.
2007-07-06 13:10:30 · answer #3 · answered by greydoc6 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There's no problem with treating family members when it's minor stuff. And the major stuff isn't so much "aren't allowed" as "you can't make me." Loss of objectivity is a real risk, and nobody wants to put himself in that position, anyway.
The only legal proscription is with controlled drugs, and that's where you have to have solid documentation, because the authorities are probably going to assume you're an impaired physician using the drugs yourself or you're diverting them to the black market.
Our lawyer friends have a saying that's much to the point: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."
2007-07-06 16:17:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
For minor stuff, we DO treat our family members. Frequently, it's in conjunction with a colleague - for example, a phone call to the pediatrician: "My kid has that ear infection again - should we do another course of azithromycin?" It saves everybody time and aggravation if I can just call the prescription in for my own kid.
Also, in a true emergency, I wouldn't hesitate to do what needed to be done to save a life or limb. That's a no-brainer.
In the US, the contracts we have with insurance companies state that we can't bill for treating our family members. So, if I DO treat my kid's ear infection, I can't collect from the insurance company for an office visit.
It is considered "not right" to perform surgery on a family member, but it is still done. (Look at many plastic surgeons' wives.) We had an incident at our hospital a few weeks ago where a surgeon wanted to do a procedure on his wife, while she was under anesthesia for another procedure. He was shot down by the administration.
Judgment can be impaired when you're operating on someone you love. It's best to find a colleague that you trust, and let him/her do their job. I'd never anesthetize my husband or kids (despite the overwhelming temptation at times! :D )It just isn't right.
2007-07-07 03:21:10 · answer #5 · answered by Pangolin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If MD's are actually legally prevented from treating their own family members, this must be an American thing as there is no such restriction in the UK.
2007-07-06 12:51:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is written in the hyppocratic oath that a doctor cannot practice on a fammily member. Im not sure when that little rule was added.
2007-07-06 15:21:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I remember my pediatrician always treated his daughter...this was the mid 1960's...I do not know when the practice became frowned upon...great question though
2007-07-06 12:49:47 · answer #8 · answered by woofan60 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋