Comments on: Doctors take risks by treating celebrity patients

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:12:42 +0000

Personally this sounds like a good reason to cut the government tie on the medical market. Let any patient do what they will. They either will or will not act responsibly, but that should not be society’s care.

By: Michael Jackson’s Doctor to be Charged with Manslaughter « WhiteCoat’s Call Room

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:15:38 +0000

[...] DA’s office not to do something – even though I don’t think it’s right. As Kevin MD highlighted in a post, such are the risks of treating [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:52:49 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with the above article. As an internist who has, in the past, had a few “celebrity” patients, I can say that I have learned to refuse to see those types in recent years, or at least recommend they go elsewhere. Often celebrity or very wealthy patients will pay in cash, which means you get paid at your actual rate, not at some forced discount that you have had to accept from medicaid or insurance companies. But beware these patients as you may find yourself enabling their self-destructive behaviors.

By: Melben

Melben — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:41:46 +0000

They say that Michael Jackson had 16 aliases to receive these medications. This Doctor was probably one of many who treated him and was with him during the hardest time, his comeback..

By: IVF-MD

IVF-MD — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:31:11 +0000

This article merely points out things that MIGHT happen and conditions that MAY be present at times. But its tone is slanted towards suggesting that these things are more common than not.

In my experience, high-profile patients may require special logistical accomodations, such as coming in through the back entrance or being seen after hours, but the fundamentals of medical care are completely within the limits of what everyone else gets.

One thing that adds to the difficulty of confidentiality is the need to DRASTICALLY minimize the number of staff involved. We end up keeping their care secret from most of our own staff. This means that sometimes, I end up having to draw their blood myself to avoid involving a phlebotomist.

So as long as this author is not trying to argue that all medical care for celebs is fundamentally different, then I’ll concede the point that there are some interesting modifications that are necessary to maintain their privacy.

As for how it all affects the MD’s decision-making, in our experience, it has made no difference. In our field, the goal is always to help the patient get pregnant in as expeditious, but conservative a manner as possible. If they opt to begin with more advanced techniques, they can choose to do so within reason, but that option is permissible for any patient irrespective of celebrity status or not.

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:59:30 +0000

And isn’t Concierge medicine a close second to this situation?

By: Dr. Mary Johnson

Dr. Mary Johnson — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:49 +0000

“. . . if the doctor takes a stand against a celebrity, he or she can be easily replaced by another who will eagerly fill the role”.

And/so? Whose excuse does that sound like? If celebrity (or anyone else) asks you to do something that is clearly wrong/unethical/unsafe/not in their (or your) best interests, TAKE A STAND.

Say No. Quit. Walk away. Report it to the appropriate authorities if need be.

After all, the AMA (“it’s a power issue” – just classic) will help protect you when you do.

Yes, I was being sarcastic.