I don't trust doctors who put their bottom line before their patients' constitutional rights. I was refused treatment because I refused to sign the insurance carrier's arbitration agreement, on or about April 10, 2014, at the Santa Monica location. I have a fundamental disagreement with any doctor whose philosophy is, "My bottom line is more important than your constitutional right to a jury trial." Which is essentially what the receptionist, or whoever was at the front desk, said to me after I told her I think arbitration agreements are wrong. "It's a business practice." Fine. But I'm not giving up my constitutional rights so easily. Lots of doctors and hospitals have arbitration agreements--which I always refuse to sign--but not many refuse to provide care and treatment if you don't sign them. I have continued treating with doctors who will treat even if a patient does not sign an arbitration agreement. I can respect that. The insurance carrier is the one who makes the doctors put that agreement in the intake packet. It's the doctors who force their patients to sign who I don't trust. It's one thing to have to include the agreement in the packet because your carrier makes you; it's another matter entirely if you make it a conscious practice to force a patient to sign in order to get care. Bottom line is, if a doctor can't respect my rights, then I don't I want them to treat me anyway. It's disrespectful to patients. And in my view, it's immoral for a doctor, whose motto is supposed to be "First, do no harm," (Hippocratic oath, anyone?) to refuse to treat someone because she won't sign an arbitration agreement. P.S. Lots of those arbitration agreements are unenforceable anyway. I still won't sign them.