We already knew that, actually, but I think the point’s been subsumed in the debate over whether and when it’s ethical not to treat a patient. Gotta say, for once I’m surprised at the results of one of our reader polls. Yes, the guy has a right to free speech, but not even a teensy bit of discomfort at this? For one thing, not everyone who comes to his office and sees that sign will necessarily understand it to mean “yes, I’ll treat you, but I’d prefer that you look elsewhere.” Some (especially the elderly and uneducated) may interpret it as a flat refusal; if there are no other urologists nearby, finding treatment from another doctor could become a burden. Beyond that, and purely from the standpoint of self-interest, a stunt like this invites reprisal. Most doctors won’t follow his lead, but some may, if only to retaliate — and not all of them will be on our side. Do you want to have to lie about your politics just to get your bladder checked out by the nearest available specialist? How about we do what we do now: Treat everyone and let doctors use the fees they collect from patients to donate to the causes and candidates of their choice. Good enough?