There are several misconceptions people have about doctors. First of all, they don't all take the Hippocratic Oath. There are various different oaths that different places require, and some have not had an oath that they had to take. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Additionally, the legal obligations of doctors obviously varies by country, but as this story is about the U.S., it is the U.S. law that is relevant:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...+Treatment
There are requirements to help in an emergency (thus, an emergency room in a hospital would not be allowed to refuse treatment for someone in need), but a doctor may ordinarily refuse to take on a new patient if he or she does not want to take on the patient.
And in this case, the baby was seen by another doctor at the time of the original appointment. So even if it were an emergency (it wasn't), it would not be a case of the child being neglected or denied care that was needed.
That said, I think this is a stupid motive to refuse to take a patient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Additionally, the legal obligations of doctors obviously varies by country, but as this story is about the U.S., it is the U.S. law that is relevant:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...+Treatment
There are requirements to help in an emergency (thus, an emergency room in a hospital would not be allowed to refuse treatment for someone in need), but a doctor may ordinarily refuse to take on a new patient if he or she does not want to take on the patient.
And in this case, the baby was seen by another doctor at the time of the original appointment. So even if it were an emergency (it wasn't), it would not be a case of the child being neglected or denied care that was needed.
That said, I think this is a stupid motive to refuse to take a patient.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
