Reply to comment

Since there is no longer a relationship to destroy and since it is such common practice (in South Africa where I live similar items pop up regularly) i would have thought that there is at least a contractual or financial challenge. Certainly there is an ethical challenge to be made. Although our legal systems differ, they all have some basic things in common. One of these is not having been informed before hand that certain things are extra and can be charged for. Supposing this had arisen in a contract over financing the purchase of a car and that some of the charges were hiden, undisclosed and appeared only when the gun is at your head and payment is being extracted. Adding insult to injury, an item which seemed an obvious part of the car, was called an "extra fitted luxry" (light fitting, or gear lever) and was part of the charging system. Ethically, The American Medical Association has a useful, if heavy, publication: "Code of Medical Ethics of the AMA" and it is the opinions and annotations (2008 - 2009 edition) of their council on ethical and judicial affairsl. these types of issues arise regularly and differing ways -- one of which is part of the informed consent procedure, another would arise out of a contract between the doctor and insurer, etc. i use this reference book regularly in some bioethical studies I am doing, and as a journalist too, I have some knowledge of how health insurers work (we appeared to have learned from you!)
It is indeed difficult to challenge doctors -- i do it all the time but have learned to preface it with items like: "You're not hampered by a bloated ego are you? There's something I wanted to ask....." But there are many who jump no matter what is being asked or how. As I was about to have an epidural anaesthetic for the birth of my daughter, I asked of the anaesthetist, with nothing particular in mind: "what are your qualifications for this type of procedure?" Journalists ask those questions and I didn't know the anaesthetist. He was very angry and about to plunge a needle into my spine.
Often however, the type of phenomenon you encountered begins with the insurance company which has stipulated what it will pay for and what rate. To maximise that, the "added extras" are slipped in. Not even a bank would easily get away with slipping in an item disguised in such as a way as it is not distinguishable from the rest of the transaction, but then charging more for it without any warning. I am often called anti-doctor and I no longer care. As the daughter of a doctor and who sees doctors at the drop of a bump, what I really hate are crooks. Some doctors unfortunately allow themselves to get tarred with that brush by behaving peculiarly when an insured patient pops in (worse when an uninsured one comes in) others bring it upon themselves with their belief in their own god-like status. of course some are crooks. But overwhelmingly, the kind of behaviour exhibited by the doctor described in the article, will have started with restrictions from insurance companies and is then mixed with a slightly inadequate ability to deal with it all openly with patients. And it need not be the insurance company of the author -- it develops over time and through many insurers and becomes ingrained. A letter to the doctor dwelling on her dubious ethics backed up with research from the AMA's book and offering her the golden opportunity to be judged by her peers in the AMA, may at least make her less likely to do it to anybody else. This business of firing patients I know happens in the USA -- but it doesn't happen in South Africa (too greedy to fire them). But my gut feel is that when it is because the doctor misbehaved and won't face a challenge, the decision of the doctor will constitute some kind of malpractice. By the way, that nice hipocratic oath (which is also in the book) always starts with something that amounts to "do no harm" and then specifies a number of other injunctions. this doctor has done harm not to mention some of the other problematic areas. But what I can't understand is why her identity is shielded. What doctors really don't want is bad publicity about their professional conduct.