Massachusetts Hospital to Deny Care for Patients Who Engage in Prohibited Speech
In a stunning development, Milford Regional Medical Center in Milford Massachusetts has published a “Patients and Visitor’s Code of Conduct.” Violations of the code could lead to denial of care for non-emergency situations.
In a video posted on Facebook, Peter B. Smulowitz, MD, MPH, explains that Milford is “dedicated to providing exceptional healthcare services to our community with dignity, compassion and respect. Everyone should expect a safe, caring and inclusive environment in our spaces.”
Anytime you hear or read a policy that contains the words, “dignity, compassion, inclusive and spaces,” you know what’s coming next: Some authoritarian mandate designed to promote certain ideas while suppressing others the originators disagree with. Once again, this looks like a case of an out-of-control HR department run amuck.
Smulowitz went on to explain that “words or actions that are disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, hostile or harassing are not welcome and will not be tolerated.”
Examples of these include:
* Offensive comments about others’ race, ethnicity, accent, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other personal traits
* Refusal to see a clinician or other staff member based on these personal traits
* Aggressive or intimidating behavior, physical or verbal threats and assaults
* Sexual or vulgar words or actions
* Disrupting another patient’s care or experience
Body language and tone of voice are also grounds for denial of care. If the staff believes you have violated their code with unwelcome words or actions, they will generously give you the opportunity to explain your point of view, and hopefully, they may allow you to have your procedure or treatment after all. The full policy is available on their website.
A Precursor to the Future
The basic idea of implementing a code of conduct in a hospital environment is not unreasonable. In fact, most people would agree a policy that prohibits aggressive behavior, sexual actions, vulgarities or disrupting another patient’s care is sensible. However, forced acceptance of a caregiver, or exclusion based on “offensive” comments, is an entirely different issue.
For example, what if a patient genuinely does not like the care he/she is receiving from a doctor who happens to be black, but skin color has nothing to do with the underlying issue? For that matter, why should a patient be forced to share the motivation behind any decision relating to their own care? Frankly, I should have the right to refuse care from anyone on the hospital staff for any reason if I’m so inclined.
Any time someone is in the hospital, it’s serious business, and the patient should have every right to choose their caregiving team. This is a very personal matter, and in all instances, the choice should be the patient’s. Anyone who would choose a doctor based on anything other than competence is a fool, but again, that is the patient’s choice to make.
Even more unsettling is the idea that care can be denied for expressing political views that run contrary to the ideology of the hospital administration. The phrase “offensive comments” is so broad and generalized, it can mean almost anything. For example, if someone used the words “illegal aliens,” in a discussion overheard by a caregiver who happens to be of Hispanic descent, would that be grounds for denying care? If a patient said there are only two genders too loudly, would they need to look for a new hospital?
You see where this effort to bully you into silence is heading?
How soon until woke banks decide they don’t want to do business with ranchers or single-family home builders because they’re destroying the planet? What will happen to conservative activists who are bold enough to speak out against leftist tyranny? Will they be tracked and punished through denial of services?
You think this is too far-fetched?
The reach of high-tech into our daily lives, accumulating vast amounts of personal information, has already proven to be too tempting for government law enforcement agencies to ignore, as evidenced by Elon Musk’s disclosure of the Twitter files.
UMass Memorial Health
Milford Regional Medical Center is owned by UMass Memorial Health System, which operates as a nonprofit. This means that as part of that classification, it is required to conduct business for a “collective, public or social benefit.” Nonprofits must have “accountability, trustworthiness, honesty, and openness to every person who has invested time, money, and faith into the organization.”
Someone please explain to me how denying healthcare to people who express views that challenge the woke narrative is providing a “social benefit” and “openness” if patients are forced to find a new doctor to perform their procedures.
Hopefully, this misguided policy is challenged in court. Although it’s easy to envision liberal judges agreeing with the discriminatory language, perhaps the case will end up at SCOTUS. Milford’s doctrine is a thinly disguised effort to implement the American version of China’s social credit system. If we allow it to stand, the left will be emboldened to enact more exclusionary policies in other vital institutions.
