Chairman's Message => Fall 2005

News

Have a proposal for FOGS or looking for a service?
Use this link to contact our office.
More...

Thank You!
FOGS and the Florida Section ACOG recognize their corporate supporters
More...

Liability Issues Report
Please use this form liberally to report the related practice problems you are facing
The Form

On Call Medical Coats
FOGS has teamed up with On Call Medical Coats to offer our members quality embroidered labcoats
Shop for Coats

FOGS Endorsed Malpractice Carrier offering a 5% discount to FOGS members
More Info

Lubell & Rosen
FOGS Endorsed
Pre-Paid Legal Defense
More Info

Your practice could receive a dividend of up to 24.8% of your workers compensation premium.
More Info

The Chairman's Message

Read Other Chairman's Messages
Summer 2008 Summer 2007 Spring 2007 Winter 2006/2007 Autumn 2006 Summer 2006 Spring 2006 Winter 2005 Fall 2005 Summer 2005 Spring 2005 Winter 2005 Fall 2004 Summer 2004 Spring 2004 Fall 2003 Summer 2003 Spring 2003 Winter 2002 Summer 2002 Spring 2002 Winter 2001 Fall 2001

Of Friends and Patients => Fall 2005

This past March the sanctity of the doctor - patient relationship was under attack in Florida.

State of Florida et al. vs. Presidential Women's Center et al. (SC04-2186) had quietly worked its way through the lower courts and is now being considered by the Florida Supreme Court. Specifically, this case challenged a 1997 law ("A Woman's Right to Know Act" 97-151) that required physicians provide patients seeking termination of pregnancy with standardized information specified by the state. This law also required that the patient be given written material prepared by the state which contained "a description of the fetus... [a] list of agencies that offer alternatives to termination... [and] detailed information on the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care."

Irrespective of anyone's opinion about the morality of abortion, this legislation, designed to create a barrier for patients seeking termination, was a significant intrusion in the physician - patient relationship. The officers of the Florida Section ACOG discussed the merits of this case. If this law was not challenged, we were concerned that other inappropriate requirements would be imposed on physicians. Who knew what other mandates would be legislated especially as related to a woman's reproductive health? The privacy of a patient's discussion with her obstetrician-gynecologist must remain unencumbered by politicians and special interest groups.

After consultation with ACOG staff, the Florida Section, as an interested party "committed to providing the highest possible quality care to women," filed an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief. This brief did not discuss the merits of abortion but instead advanced a compelling legal and moral argument about the sanctity and privacy of the physician - patient relationship, essential to preserve medicine as a profession. I would feel the same whether the law was for or against abortion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals previously ruled that this case infringed on the woman's ability to receive her physician's unencumbered opinion, taking into account her specific "medical, social and economic needs and other unique circumstances." The Florida Section's Brief supported the position of the Appellate Court and was favorably received by the Florida Supreme Court, though their final ruling is still pending.

The process of informed consent must be an unencumbered dialogue in which the physician considers the clinical situation and the unique characteristics of the patient. This unbiased discussion should cover benefits, risks and options that take into account what is best for the patient. This process must not be politicized.