LW, think really, really hard about this before you make a move. Consider how difficult it is to find a good general practitioner these days. You could be screwing yourself, in more ways than one.

Back in the early days of Saturday Night Live there was a sketch about a woman (played by Jane Curtin) set up on a blind date with a guy (played by Kris Kristofferson) who turned out to be her gynecologist. It was played for pretty good laughs back then. But today, if this happened Kris would take one look at Jane and say "Nope, sorry, gotta go." This is an absolute no-can-do situation. Don't even think about it. And don't put the poor guy at risk of being hurt in some misunderstanding.

I'd also add that if you do come onto him in any kind of romantic way he would have no choice but to fire you as a patient (yes, that's the term that's used) and document the reason why in your medical chart. This chart would then be sent on to your next health care provider (routine when people change doctors) who would then know exactly why you've become their new patient. It would make for an awkward first appointment, to say the least.

As I think on this some more, if a patient were to come on to me romantically I'd probably contact my malpractice insurance carrier so they could start a file. They, in turn, would probably contact one of the attorneys they have on retainer. An accusation of improper conduct can be a career, or even life, destroying event for a physician. We have to protect ourselves and the best way to do that is thorough, contemporary documentation.

This whole notion of 'improper conduct' seems to stem from the idea that grown adults are mentally children who can't make adult decisions for themselves, and need the legal system to protect them from their own decisions.

This whole notion of 'improper conduct' seems to stem from the idea that grown adults are mentally children who can't make adult decisions for themselves, and need the legal system to protect them from their own decisions.

This whole notion of 'improper conduct' seems to stem from the idea that grown [women] are mentally children who can't make adult decisions for themselves, and need the legal system to protect them from their own decisions.

Fixed it for you.

The whole notion of "improper conduct" stems from the nature of the therapeutic relationship. Note that their relationship is already very intimate, if only in one direction. He knows her secrets. He's seen her naked. His hands have been to places normally only visited by a sexual partner. The therapeutic relationship requires emotional distance in order to work properly. It's very hard to be dispassionate about someone you're emotionally involved with, yet dispassion is necessary for him to function properly as her doctor. There's a very good reason "improper conduct" is forbidden.

You are wrong Lujilp. The same rules apply if a male patient propositions a female doctor as if a female patient propositions a male doctor. And vice versa. As DrMaturin said there is a very good reason "improper conduct" is forbidden.

All of my clients are women... Good thing these rules don't exist in my line of work, because we'd be breaking them all the time!

The same rules may apply Ben, but the reason for their implementation was undoubtedly women being coddled.

@"The whole notion of "improper conduct" stems from the nature of the therapeutic relationship ... There's a very good reason "improper conduct" is forbidden."

Yes, because like you're saying here, grown women are mentally children who can't be expected to make adult decisions for themselves .. I get it.

(DrMaturin goes to great lengths to avoid using my wording but he is actually saying the exact same thing. He just doesn't like my wording because it makes it sound bad.)

@"You are wrong Lujilp. The same rules apply if a male patient propositions a female doctor as if a female patient propositions a male doctor"

That might be true, but let's face it, if a male patients goes in for a check-up and him and the female doctor wind up getting a little frisky, 'society at large' isn't generally going to think of him as having been an unwilling participant who was overcome by his own emotional weakness. Whereas if the genders are reversed, almost everyone will be telling you that its because women are just too emotionally weak.

I once worked under a doctor who had romantic designs on a female patient. In a sense, I understand why these laws need to be in place. The patients are not only vulnerable due to injury or illness (we specialized in accident victims). But also, the doctor writes the prescriptions.

In light of all the venues for control that a doctor has over a patient, I can understand why these laws need to be in place.

Florida is a notorious pill-mill and that's one of the reasons I left that office. It was so discouraging to see how many people wanted drugs, or wanted disability. Some were so forward about it. They'd ask the doctor, "Can you make sure that they find something that will give me permanent disability?"

Sickening. I had this incredibly naive idea that I was helping people.

@"But also, the doctor writes the prescriptions."

And this is also wrong ... it should be up to a grown adult to decide what they put in their body. While getting advice from a doctor makes sense, you shouldn't need a doctor to 'write a prescription', you should be allowed to purchase the medication directly just by asking for it. I repeat again, grown adults are not little children that need to be protected from themselves by legislation. Treat them that way, and they'll behave like it.

@"The patients are not only vulnerable due to injury or illness"

I can understand psychiatric patients are 'vulnerable' - in that domain, I agree it shouldn't be a 'free for all' (though I would still propose vast changes to the system as it is now). But if an otherwise healthy woman is just coming in for a check-up, or has the sniffles, in what sense is she 'vulnerable', other than that she has a fragile delicate XX chromosome that requires all this white-knighting to rescue her from her supposed emotional weakness? Patrick, I'm not sure you realize how sexist that comes across.

"While getting advice from a doctor makes sense, you shouldn't need a doctor to 'write a prescription', you should be allowed to purchase the medication directly just by asking for it."
Really?
I'm sure you could find several drugs which effects depend on the dosage, and which require strict monitoring. There is a valid reason some drugs are by prescription only.
This is not a question of being an "adult". It is a question of patient ignorance.

@"This is not a question of being an "adult". It is a question of patient ignorance."

That's why I said exactly that it's a good idea to get advice from a doctor when you take medication. That still doesn't mean it should be mandatory and enforced by men with guns.

Where does the notion that forbidding romantic relationships between doctor and patient infantilizes the patient come from? We've known since the days of Hippocrates that this is a bad idea. I've already described why. This is non-controversial among medical professionals.

@lobster. There's a really good reason some drugs should only be available through prescriptions. Would you make opiates available over the counter? These drugs need to be dosed by someone who knows what they're doing. A major reason antibiotic resistance is such a problem is that in many parts of the world they are sold over the counter and actively pushed by pharmacists (I've seen this). We're rapidly losing our ability to treat many infectious diseases because of this.

"These drugs need to be dosed by someone who knows what they're doing."

You like the illusion of control.
The moment you put more than one dose in a bottle, and sell it to the patient,you have lost control over the dosing process.

The only place you actually have any control. Is in the hospital where the opiates are kept under lock and key.

Also countries which have socialized medicine is where they have lost control over antibiotics. The quacks at the NHS hand them out like candy, because it is easier than telling a patient that their viral infection will go away on its own.

The doctors and the hospitals want to control drugs because of money.

They want to control doctor patient relationships because the legal system in the country is bat shit crazy, and.a doctor will be successfully sued for having a relationship with a patient, if that relationship goes bad.
Most times his or her malpractice insurance will be picking up the tab. ( so the answer again, is money)

@"Where does the notion that forbidding romantic relationships between doctor and patient infantilizes the patient come from?"

From people like YOU - read your own comments above - you all but say yourself 'the patient is mentally like an infant'.

@"There's a really good reason"

People who like to use force to forbid other adults from engaging in mutually consensual actions always seem to have 'a really good reason'.

If a grown woman goes to a doctor for a check-up, and they hit it off, start dating, fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after ... then frankly it's none of any body else's business, and you have no right to call in the government to use force to break apart that relationship and destroy the doctor's career. None. It should be a crime to do so.

@"We're rapidly losing our ability to treat many infectious diseases because of this"

Um, hello, it is YOU DOCTORS who are over-prescribing antibiotics. Who else can it be, as only doctors are ALLOWED to! And here we are, losing control over it, and you point a finger and blame my hypothetical liberty-based system which doesn't exist as the cause. You suggest the answer to antibiotic resistance is .. um, the system we have now, where only doctors are allowed to prescribe them and it's tightly controlled. Pro-tip: It's not working. Doctors seem to give out antibiotics like freakin candy these days.

And the flip-side of antibiotic resistance is why so few new antibiotics are being developed - drug research has been all but crushed by stifling regulations that, once again, are pushed by people who parade 'saving people from themselves' as the 'really good reason'. Those 'really good reasons' are killing people. ("It takes on average 12 years and over US$350 million to get a new drug from the laboratory onto the pharmacy shelf" - this is insane, and should also be considered criminal.)

I dunno, my chiro made a pass at me. First, when he was dealing with my hip, he massaged my butt a little too vigorously, and it was weird, but I was like, "Maybe he's just a very thorough massager" but then later he started talking about some kinky sex movie (Secretary maybe?) and asked if I wanted to see it. I was like 22 and he was like 50 or something. It was an awkward situation. I didn't report him, I just got a new chiro. Too bad because up until then he'd been a good chiro.

But when someone's in a position to be touching your various body parts, someone who hadn't gone to the chiro much might not know how much butt touching is really appropriate (or boob touching, ball squeezing, other things docs, nurses and health practitioners do), which puts patients and clients in a vulnerable position.

Lobster, you are out in left field. I don't really care what you think 'society' would feel. If the rules are non-discriminatory and are enforced in a non-discriminatory way it is non-discriminatory. Some things are clear conflicts of interest and have nothing to do with infantalizing either party. A male gay doctor should not be treating his lover for the exact same reason.

And on antibiotics you clearly don't know what you are talking about. In the US the biggest source of drug resistance is farming. Antibiotics fed to animals don't need doctor approval. These drugs are cheap and can be purchased in mass quantities. Farms consume ~70% of the antibiotics used in the US. Yes, doctors should be more careful in prescribing antibiotics and patients should be more diligent in following their use. But farms are source number 1.

If the rules are non-discriminatory and are enforced in a non-discriminatory way it is non-discriminatory.

Unless it causes 'dispirit" impact to women or minoritues

Gee, Lobster, here's your Valproic Acid, 500mg, 1000-count.

Good luck – and good luck to everyone around you when you lose your mind.

We are not all living on farms anymore. Researchers and companies are making substances that are magnificent in moderation, and totally deadly in excess.

I have no idea why some people insist that people who know absolutely nothing should be in charge of something, or engage in the "slippery slope" fallacy by claiming that because some people do not follow prescriptions, there just shouldn't be any.