Snap Judgement Episode 2: Patient or Customer

I read an article today arguing that hospitals should consider their patrons as customers rather than patients.  It was an intriguing article and nerd that I am, my first thought was...gee this would be a great debate topic for my blog.

Please read the full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/19/what-if-hospitals-thought-us-as-customers-not-patients/

A quick summary:  The author was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer and has had unpleasant experiences at a few different hospitals during his treatment.  He mentions that at one hospital he was left outside of a bathroom by an orderly.  The orderly was called to tend to another patient and the author was left in his wheelchair outside of a non-handicapped accessible bathroom.  Thankfully, a doctor came and assisted him to a restroom that would accommodate his wheelchair.  At the end of the article the author goes on to say that hospitals should take lessons in customer service from companies like Disney.  He says: 
"Imagine a hospital that has retained Disney to train its staff in fundamental customer service.

Imagine hospital workers who smile and tell you how pleased they are you chose to come to their hospital. 

It is beyond hope that any physician would ever think to acknowledge a customer relationship with “patients.' Yet imagine the feeling in your soul if you ever were to approach the desk in a hospital waiting room to find a smiling face greeting you with a bright look and the words, “Good Morning. I am so pleased you decided to come here for your medical problems. I am here to help you.'"

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/19/what-if-hospitals-thought-us-as-customers-not-patients/#ixzz2fO4tqJQ4

In my recurring series "Snap Judgement" I like to encourage discussion and debate on a topic, so please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.  I look forward to hearing the many opinions and would like to now propose some specific questions for discussion:

1) Should hospital patrons be considered customers when most of the payment for services comes from third party sources, such as private insurance?  How do we reconcile this issue or do we need to?

2) Does this problem become worse under a national healthcare program?  Would the patrons have a leg to stand on with the "customer" argument in this scenario?

3) How could a hospital adapt the customer service techniques of a corporation like Disney to allow them to accommodate their patrons in a friendly and welcoming environment, while maintaining the highest standards in healthcare?  Would one necessarily jeopardize the other?

I look forward to a lively discussion!  Please remember to keep your comments on topic, professional and edifying: no swearing, petty name calling, or personal attacks.  This is an avenue for wholesome, fair minded debate, and this author reserves the right to remove any comments she feels stifle debate or contain inappropriate content.  Thank you!

Three’s a Crowd…

There is a new IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) procedure being developed in the United Kingdom.  The procedure aims to prevent diseases of the Mitochonidria.  These include certain types of Muscular Dystrophy that are genetically passed down from the mother.  This procedure would introduce DNA from a third parent by the transfer of the nucleolus from a donor egg.   99.8% of the genes of the resulting child would be from the biological mother and father.  Approximately 0.2% would come from the donor woman's egg.  This would result in the child having 3 biological parents.

The whole idea is an interesting one and it's a noble goal to want to protect these children from Mitochondrial disease.  However, I think it's a “slippery slope.”  Yes, yes, there it is…the standard conservative argument for everything.  I hate making it as much as you probably hate reading it, but I think it applies in this case.

When you talk about genetically modifying humans (which is what we are talking about here), you open some very scary doors.  If a person's genetics can be modified to correct a genetic disease at conception, could they be modified to ensure the child will be tall?  Or, to ensure she will have blue eyes?  The potential is "designer children," or children whose genetic makeup has been specifically chosen.

I can already hear some of you out there: “That will never happen.”  “No one is going to pay that kind of money to pick out their child’s eye color.”  And so on, and so on.

For those who are skeptical of the idea, please allow me to give you an example of who this technique could be marketed to:

Kim Kardashian - a woman with more money than brains, whose maternal instinct didn’t stop her from naming her daughter North West.  Could you honestly tell me that someone like Ms. Kardashian wouldn’t want to create her “perfect” child?  Or, that no company would allow her to do this for the right price?

There is an epidemic in our society right now of “trophy babies.”  Some parents have babies and forget that they are tiny people.  That those children need to be nurtured and taught, and that one day they are going to need to be functional adults.  I think the ability to have “designer children,” would only make this trend worse.  It would allow those with enough money to choose qualities in their child like a little girl picks a doll from the American Girl store.  I don’t think this would be good for the child or society.

What if the “designer baby” trend then really took off?  What would society look like?  Naturally, there would be the haves and the have-nots.  People who could afford it would select for: intelligence, athleticism, beauty, etc., and the gap would widen between socioeconomic classes in our country.

As much as I would love to see a cure for mitochondrial diseases, any time we manipulate a person’s genes we are playing with fire.