Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

Ferguson v. City of Charleston concerned the policies of a public hospital. The hospital in that case was involuntarily screening pregnant women for drugs and then turning over positive test results to the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court said that these actions violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable warrantless searches.

Public hospitals are part of the government and must obey the same Constitutional requirements as other parts of the government. But the Constitution in general -- and the Fourth Amendment in particular -- apply only to governmental entities. They do not apply to individuals or private entities unless they are acting on behalf of the government.

A doctor who is working in her private practice or for a private hospital, clinic, etc. is not part of the government. She cannot violate the Fourth Amendment because that amendment does not apply to her. There are other laws which limit what she can do, but it is impossible for her to violate the Fourth Amendment no matter what she does.

Your argument presumes that doctors in private practice are limited in the same way as the public hospital in the Ferguson case. That presumption is incorrect, and it leads you to an incorrect result. The Fourth Amendment has no bearing at all on your relationship with your doctor unless she is working for a government entity when she treats you.

You also mention medical malpractice. I don't know whether what you say about malpractice law is correct, since that is not my area of expertise. But your question does not tell us enough about your relationship with your doctor to know whether she has violated the rule you state, even if that rule really is the law. For all we know she insisted on testing you the first time you saw her. If that is what happened, then she was probably well within her rights when she refused to treat you. The same may be true even if this wasn't your first visit.

I am not a medical malpractice specialist, but I am relatively well versed in the area. First off, Mr. Hoffman's analysis regarding the 4th amendment is entirely correct. Constitutional rights only apply to people's dealings with the government, not with non-government entities and other individuals. Second, you are simply wrong that it is automatically malpractice to stop treating a patient. In fact, continuing a course of treatment that the doctor believes may be harmful to the patient, when the patient refuses to allow the doctor to conduct tests that will determine whether the continuing treatment is harmful, would almost certainly be malpractice if any harm came to the patient. More specifically, if the doctor has reason to believe that you are using other drugs that may be incompatible with the prescribed treatment, or that you are over using the prescribed drugs, or that you are developing a medically harmful dependence or addiction to the prescribed drugs, and you refuse to allow the tests necessary for the doctor to confirm or refute the suspicion, it would be malpractice NOT to discontinue treatment in most if not all cases.