Clearly a agenda exist with CVOID, Things just do not add up when look into it deeply
Very very interesting, speaking about the first case.
So I'm going to weigh in on this as a medical professional (mental health, that is).
*******(My post is a little long but it is worth reading every word
) ***********
So we have four main actors that I see in this scenario.
(One) The patient/client
(Two) The primary provider/referring physician
(Three) The treating provider/hospital
(Four) The courts.
So I'm going to assume for the sake of discussion that the patients family is speaking on behalf of the patient and appropriate consents have been signed.
Now, as a mental health therapist, I receive referrals form doctors for clients that the referring doctor feels need mental health treatment, I also
make referrals to other mental health professionals, for example, I may make a referral to someone who specializes in art therapy to do some extra
work with my client, or sometimes I may refer to lower level services such as community mentoring supports.
Now, if I refer to someone in-house (within my agency) the person I refer to will follow my direction because I'm doing the referral and they are in-house.
However if I refer to an outside agency for something that is not my specialty, I may state with my goals for the referral but I don't dictate their treatment or get
to tell them how to do their job. If I knew how to do their job I wouldn't need to refer to another provider.
So in this case the primary provider(family physician) is not referring in-house as he is not part of the hospital staff, and further more, I don't think he
is even referring necessarily, I think the client is in the hospital because they are very sick and the primary provider is trying to coordinate care and
better support their client. When a patient goes to a hospital the hospital usually request records from the primary physician so that they have history
of medical records, but this is to inform care, the primary doctor does not dictate the treatment.
Concerning the patient, typically speaking, the patient themselves or the patient family is part of the treatment plan, but seldom do they get
to tell the doctors what treatment to provide.
Ultimately it should be a team approach. The hospital should coordinate care with the primary physician and they should inform the patient so they are
all working together, with the hospital making the final decision while taking into consideration the desires of all the other team members. The hospital
in this situation gets the final say because they have the final liability. If they were to follow an outside providers recommendations and something bad
happens, it is possible that their could be sued, and they don't want that. I also agree that the political aspect of co-vid has the hospital very sensitive.
But look at is this way, the same works in reverse. Assuming this patient gets out of the hospital, when they are discharged back to the treating
physician/primary doctor, they will share a report(discharge summary) with that doctor which will include recommendations and current medications.
However when the patient returns to the primary doctor's care, the hospital no longer will be able to dictate to the primary physician what treatment
to provide or how to treat the patient. The family physician will read the report and take into consideration what was done in the hospital but ultimately
they will make the ultimate decision. So it goes both ways.
As a medical (mental health) professional who works on teams with various professionals (social service workers, psychologist, psychiatric, primary doctors, lawyers, therapist)
ultimately the ideal is that it should be a team approach, with the in-house agency getting the ultimate say keeping the clients best interest at heart
while being mindful of their liability.