Susan, your post reminded me of a similar thing in this weekend's New York Times magazine. In the Ethicist column, written by Randy Cohen, a woman asks this question:
"A few hours before a dentist appointment, I had to cancel because the baby sitter was ill. The dentist charged me $25 for canceling within 24 hours. Days later, just two hours before my rescheduled appointment, the dentist's office called: because of an emergency, my appointment had to be rescheduled. This is hypocrisy on their part, but should I accept that "policy is policy" or demand "an eye for an eye?" "
Mr. Cohen writes that "For a precept to be fair, it must apply no matter who transgresses. Here this means that whether dentist or patient cancels at the last moment, the same penalty should apply."
He goes on to write that either party suffers if the other cancels at the last minute -- the dentist misses the opportunity to make income during that time, or the patient loses her baby sitting fee or the ability to make other plans. And that the $25 fee is compensation for the harmed party, and therefore should go both ways. And that either party should have the ability to cancel in case of emergency; in other words, the dentist's emergency is not more important than that of the patient.
Comment Reply
Susan, your post reminded me of a similar thing in this weekend's New York Times magazine. In the Ethicist column, written by Randy Cohen, a woman asks this question:
"A few hours before a dentist appointment, I had to cancel because the baby sitter was ill. The dentist charged me $25 for canceling within 24 hours. Days later, just two hours before my rescheduled appointment, the dentist's office called: because of an emergency, my appointment had to be rescheduled. This is hypocrisy on their part, but should I accept that "policy is policy" or demand "an eye for an eye?" "
Mr. Cohen writes that "For a precept to be fair, it must apply no matter who transgresses. Here this means that whether dentist or patient cancels at the last moment, the same penalty should apply."
He goes on to write that either party suffers if the other cancels at the last minute -- the dentist misses the opportunity to make income during that time, or the patient loses her baby sitting fee or the ability to make other plans. And that the $25 fee is compensation for the harmed party, and therefore should go both ways. And that either party should have the ability to cancel in case of emergency; in other words, the dentist's emergency is not more important than that of the patient.
I had two thoughts while reading it:
1. He's exactly right, and
2. It'll never happen.
But wouldn't it be nice?
February 11, 2009 - 9:32amThis Comment
Reply