In 1770, in Boston, British soldiers fired into a crowd of
colonists who were taunting the soldiers.
Several colonists died and several soldiers were arrested and charged
with murder. This event known as the
Boston Massacre was a seminal historical episode that contributed to the
colonists’ growing desire to separate from the British Crown.
Boston was a cauldron of the independence movement. Hatred against the British was
prevalent. Who would be willing to
defend the accused soldiers at trial risking opprobrium or worse? John Adams, our future second president,
defended the soldiers believing that every accused deserves adequate
representation. To this day, America
distinguishes itself with our belief and practice that an accused man is
presumed innocent and is entitled to a competent legal defense. As we all know, lawyers are often assigned or
volunteer to defend unsavory individuals to protect their clients’
constitutional rights, ensure that the legal process is being respected and to
prevent a rush to judgement from taking hold.
Understandably, many lawyers would not rush to defend accused child
molesters, terrorists, white supremacists, kidnappers or abusers of the elderly
or other vulnerable people, and yet these accused people fully deserve and are
entitled to representation.
John Adams Sets Example for Doctors
But, John Adams accepted defendants who were reviled and
thereby burnished his own reputation as a principled statesman performing the
noble mission of the legal profession.
Six of the soldiers were acquitted and two were convicted of
manslaughter.
Both lawyers and physicians don’t choose their
customers. They come to us. While many who come to physicians for
assistance are pleasant and cooperative, others have less sanguine traits. I have seen patients who are argumentative,
demanding, rude, dishonest, hostile and overtly racist. A few days before writing this, one of our
secretaries became rattled when a patient cursed her. Of course, patients who
are worried or sick are entitled to great latitude, which doctors and our
staffs extend to them. But, aside from
this, there are disagreeable patients whom I just don’t like. But, these folks are entitled to the best
medical advice I can provide, and I do my best to meet this obligation. Everyone has a right to competent medical
care. But, as doctors and nurses would
testify, it is easier to do our jobs when patients and their families are
pleasant and cooperative.
First, let me admit that not every physician is a clone of
Marcus Welby, MD, and patients may legitimately complain that some of their
doctors are wanting in their bedside manners and attitude. If readers wish to speak on this issue, leave
a comment.
There is no application process to become a doctor’s
patient. Universities and employers can
reject applicants, but physicians, for the most part, see everyone. While
I like and enjoy the majority of my patients, there are some whom I serve
despite harboring some negative feelings.
And, of course, even those whom I enjoy being with may have a variety of
private views and opinions that differ from mine. Part of my job is to make sure that any
personal feelings I have do not interfere with my ability to serve the patient
well.
I’d like to think that I could serve any patient, but I
recognize that this idealistic statement is not realistic. Humans cannot be expected to exhibit
superhuman behavior. If the
doctor-patient relationship is strained beyond the point where the doctor can
give sound and sober medical advice, then the physician may need to step
aside.
John Adams has set a stratospheric example for lawyers,
physicians and, indeed, for all of us.
In the same vein as John Adams and Boston's wish for independence...relationships are made better the more freedom is in that relationship.
ReplyDeleteHow much freedom is in the doctor patient relationship? On both sides
@Tarigal, appreciate your comment. I agree that freedom and openness make for better relationships and outcomes. Look forward to your returning to the blog.
ReplyDelete