Dating patient ethics database updating sort order
We need to rise above the cynical view that love cannot exist, and sex must be abusive and transient, between people with power disparities.
Our professional standards are perfectly rational and make fine common sense.
Suppose our small-town doctor becomes smitten with a local beau or belle.
Let's say both fully understand the potential conflict of interest that arises if the doctor prescribes penicillin for a strep throat.
Rules are always problematic, especially those that address highly complex human behaviors.
I would argue, I think with good support, that love and mating entail the greatest complexity of anything we do as a species.
The subject of physician-patient boundaries illustrates how well-intentioned policy can be written in a way that is simply too shallow to serve the goals of ethics.
The AMA says: "Sexual contact that occurs concurrent with the physician-patient relationship constitutes sexual misconduct.
So if our doctor starts "seeing" a local woman or man, he or she risks running afoul of the "no overlap" rule.
So, our doctor has the option of dating only residents of the next county or ordering a bride or groom by mail.
Like the AMA, Colorado doesn't specify how long after a romantic relationship ceases a medical one might begin, stating only that they must not be "concurrent." Other states address — or do not address — this issue with varying degrees of explicitness.
Mental health professionals set even stricter standards.
For psychiatrists, it is a violation to cross the "patient-lover boundary" with any person who has ever been in the other role.