I wonder if he/she'd go to an ENT if he/she broke a toe? Because a doctor is a doctor...
Sigh...
Logic dictates that this hate claim wouldn't be upheld because of the specifics of medical specialization. But could you imagine if it were upheld and the government said that the doctor had to treat him/her?
What would that do to the doctor's malpractice insurance? I imagine it could cause it to skyrocket because the doctor is now "treating" outside of his specialty area, which opens up the chance for something crucial to be missed. For example, what if he/she develops a biologically specific cancer (testicular) that the gyn missed? Is that grounds for a malpractice suit?
What would it mean for medical ethics?
And, given the state of the Canadian medical system, where wait times can be kind of extreme for specialists, what potential impact would this have on a true patient who might be bumped from a medically necessary appointment slot?