Asking about LGBTQ+ identity on secondary application

[deleted1001426]

I apologize for my ignorance.I know very little about this. I dont think employers are allowed to ask these kinds of questions. Are you at risk of being subject to complaints if you ask them?

A bit of a late response but My understanding is that an employer can ask whatever they want as long as they don’t use it as criteria for discriminating against a certain group. I vaguely remember something 2-3 years ago about Goldman Sachs including a drop down on many of their applications which asked for sexual/gender identity and I don’t believe anything came of it

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

A bit of a late response but My understanding is that an employer can ask whatever they want as long as they don’t use it as criteria for discriminating against a certain group. I vaguely remember something 2-3 years ago about Goldman Sachs including a drop down on many of their applications which asked for sexual/gender identity and I don’t believe anything came of it

An employer cannot legally ask anything they want

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

An employer cannot legally ask anything they want

There’s no federal protection for sexual orientation or gender identity, and the states are split so right now they can ask you your status in most places. But yeah, there are things they aren’t allowed to ask about. This just isn’t one of them right now for the most part.

 

[SaraTonin_15]

An employer cannot legally ask anything they want

Regarding your sexuality, yes they can. Like previous comment, there is no federal protection. In Texas you can be fired for your sexuality. Hence, I can see why some applicants are hesitant/uncomfortable to disclose information regarding sexuality.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Depends on the area I guess. Every place I’ve lived there have been plenty. Now whether or not they are knowledgeable on the unique health issues the community faces is another question.

0 in my hometown. Ive looked

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

0 in my hometown. Ive looked

There are zero doctors in your hometown that will see gay patients or zero that are knowledgeable about lgbt health?

 

[deleted972488]

Imagine if we had specialists such as OB-GYNs who were unwilling to provide services to lesbian couples who were attempting pregnancy or after pregnancy had been achieved.

One doesn’t even have to imagine such a scenario. There are plenty of real-life cases of LGBT people being discriminated against in a healthcare setting.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

There are zero doctors in your hometown that will see gay patients or zero that are knowledgeable about lgbt health?

Zero providers who are lgbt. Being “lgbt knowledgeable” and lgbt are two different things

 

[deleted1001426]

Zero providers who are lgbt. Being “lgbt knowledgeable” and lgbt are two different things

If you don’t mind me asking, how do you know? At least in my experience, when I share details about myself with my docs they don’t reciprocate and very rarely do they talk about their family lives in enough detail for me to ascertain anything other than than they’re married with children. Which is think is a good thing. As long as they are providing me with adequate care and are understanding of any issues I have then idc what the gender of their significant other is

I’m not asking because I doubt what you’re saying, just genuinely curious

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Zero providers who are lgbt. Being “lgbt knowledgeable” and lgbt are two different things

Thanks for the condescending reply, but yes I obviously know that given my posts on this thread. Did you ask them all? Also not sure why you specifically need an lgbt doctor if there are docs who are knowledgeable since that’s what matters.

 

[LizzyM]

Imagine if we were arguing that the race of a physician didn't matter as long as physicians were knowledgeable of the specific health issues of patients in ethnic or racial minority groups and therefore there was no need to admit any URM candidates to medical school. And we don't need to admit women to medical school-- as long as men are knowledgeable of female pathology they can do an adequate job of meeting the needs of that population.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Thanks for the condescending reply, but yes I obviously know that given my posts on this thread. Did you ask them all? Also not sure why you specifically need an lgbt doctor if there are docs who are knowledgeable since that’s what matters.

Wasn't trying to condescend, was just stating. About your second point, imo not a great stance please see below.

If you don’t mind me asking, how do you know? At least in my experience, when I share details about myself with my docs they don’t reciprocate and very rarely do they talk about their family lives in enough detail for me to ascertain anything other than than they’re married with children. Which is think is a good thing. As long as they are providing me with adequate care and are understanding of any issues I have then idc what the gender of their significant other is

I’m not asking because I doubt what you’re saying, just genuinely curious

So I haven't gone around to every PCP in my town and asked if that's what you're wondering. That's beside the point though bc what I'm saying isn't just that we need lgbt providers just for the heck of it (in which case it wouldn't matter whether the person identifies or not).

What I mean is that there is no advertised/documented/whatever you want to call LGBT pcps in my hometown. In comparison, where I work now, there is a public list of lgbt providers in the area. Imo sexual orientation is a bit less mundane in terms of healthcare than parenthood status, marriage etc etc. Sexual orientation is inextricably intertwined with healthcare issues for a lot of people. Its completely up to a provider whether or not they want to divulge this information publicly, but what it says when there is a provider openly says "I'm (x)" is that people who are also (x), and have health issues or questions pertaining to (x) know that this is someone they can go to without a doubt and get their needs addressed. I'm not saying lgbt friendly providers aren't a good thing, I'm not saying gay providers who don't publicly identify aren't good people, I'm just saying that its important to have open providers because for people who want that, it removes a shadow of doubt that sometimes underlies lgbt people seeking out healthcare.

 

[deleted1001426]

Imagine if we were arguing that the race of a physician didn't matter as long as physicians were knowledgeable of the specific health issues of patients in ethnic or racial minority groups and therefore there was no need to admit any URM candidates to medical school. And we don't need to admit women to medical school-- as long as men are knowledgeable of female pathology they can do an adequate job of meeting the needs of that population.

With all due respect, that’s not the equivalent point of what anyone is saying and had I not been 4 years removed from that god awful rhetoric class I had to take in undergrad, I would be more than willing to point out the logical fallacy that you just walked into.

 

[TwoHighways]

Imagine if we were arguing that the race of a physician didn't matter as long as physicians were knowledgeable of the specific health issues of patients in ethnic or racial minority groups and therefore there was no need to admit any URM candidates to medical school. And we don't need to admit women to medical school-- as long as men are knowledgeable of female pathology they can do an adequate job of meeting the needs of that population.

Imagine if we admitted the best, brightest, and most empathetic candidates regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Imagine if we admitted students that questioned the dogma of convention in medicine. Imagine if we approached health care in a manner which identified and corrected the root causes of disease instead of managing symptoms. Imagine if we weren’t beholden to insurance companies that dictate standard of care and balk when a physician wants to order additional tests. Imagine a world without EMR’s and the charting demands as they exist currently. Imagine a world where primary care doctors got to spend more than just a few minutes with their patients to actually build some rapport/sense of trust with patients that come from different backgrounds.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Imagine if we were arguing that the race of a physician didn't matter as long as physicians were knowledgeable of the specific health issues of patients in ethnic or racial minority groups and therefore there was no need to admit any URM candidates to medical school. And we don't need to admit women to medical school-- as long as men are knowledgeable of female pathology they can do an adequate job of meeting the needs of that population.

I hope you’re only responding to the one person who is saying that because literally no one else is making that argument. Since you didn’t quote anyone I can’t tell.

 

[deleted1001426]

What I mean is that there is no advertised/documented/whatever you want to call LGBT pcps in my hometown. In comparison, where I work now, there is a public list of lgbt providers in the area. Imo sexual orientation is a bit less mundane in terms of healthcare than parenthood status, marriage etc etc. Sexual orientation is inextricably intertwined with healthcare issues for a lot of people. Its completely up to a provider whether or not they want to divulge this information publicly, but what it says when there is a provider openly says "I'm (x)" is that people who are also (x), and have health issues or questions pertaining to (x) know that this is someone they can go to without a doubt and get their needs addressed. I'm not saying lgbt friendly providers aren't a good thing, I'm not saying gay providers who don't publicly identify aren't good people, I'm just saying that its important to have open providers because for people who want that, it removes a shadow of doubt that sometimes underlies lgbt people seeking out healthcare.

honestly I see where you're coming from but if our objective is to one day live in a society where all are treated equally regardless of sexual or gender identity, then stratifying healthcare providers based on identity, while offering certain short term benefits, is not making progress towards that goal. If anything it just furthers public misconceptions that those in the lgbt community are fundamentally different from the rest of society.

edit: once again, adding the caveat that I am by no means an expert in the plight of everyone in the lgbt community and I've undoubtedly been rather fortunate with my experiences thus far so feel free to inform me if I'm terribly missing the mark lol

 

[TwoHighways]

I want better health care for everyone. I don’t think that involves changing the demographics of the providers. If you want to improve outcomes for xyz subset of the population, go about it by pushing for meaningful systemic changes.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Wasn't trying to condescend, was just stating. About your second point, imo not a great stance please see below.



So I haven't gone around to every PCP in my town and asked if that's what you're wondering. That's beside the point though bc what I'm saying isn't just that we need lgbt providers just for the heck of it (in which case it wouldn't matter whether the person identifies or not).

What I mean is that there is no advertised/documented/whatever you want to call LGBT pcps in my hometown. In comparison, where I work now, there is a public list of lgbt providers in the area. Imo sexual orientation is a bit less mundane in terms of healthcare than parenthood status, marriage etc etc. Sexual orientation is inextricably intertwined with healthcare issues for a lot of people. Its completely up to a provider whether or not they want to divulge this information publicly, but what it says when there is a provider openly says "I'm (x)" is that people who are also (x), and have health issues or questions pertaining to (x) know that this is someone they can go to without a doubt and get their needs addressed. I'm not saying lgbt friendly providers aren't a good thing, I'm not saying gay providers who don't publicly identify aren't good people, I'm just saying that its important to have open providers because for people who want that, it removes a shadow of doubt that sometimes underlies lgbt people seeking out healthcare.

So is being Jewish, but doctors don’t advertise that they know about Jewish healthcare needs. I don’t care if my doctor is Jewish as long as they know to screen me and my wife for things like Tay-Sachs and Canavan before we have kids. But the docs we went to didn’t and we got lucky (B”H). So I actually do get it.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Imagine if we admitted the best, brightest, and most empathetic candidates regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Imagine if we admitted students that questioned the dogma of convention in medicine. Imagine if we approached health care in a manner which identified and corrected the root causes of disease instead of managing symptoms. Imagine if we weren’t beholden to insurance companies that dictate standard of care and balk when a physician wants to order additional tests. Imagine a world without EMR’s and the charting demands as they exist currently. Imagine a world where primary care doctors got to spend more than just a few minutes with their patients to actually build some rapport/sense of trust with patients that come from different backgrounds.

I hope you’re only responding to the one person who is saying that because literally no one else is making that argument. Since you didn’t quote anyone I can’t tell.

With all due respect, that’s not the equivalent point of what anyone is saying and had I not been 4 years removed from that god awful rhetoric class I had to take in undergrad, I would be more than willing to point out the logical fallacy that you just walked into.

Welll i'll hop under this bus w @LizzyM bc I kinda heard the same thing - you guys were kinda saying its arbitrary whether we have lgbt friendly physicians or lgbt physicians. Its sort of like the whole colorblind rhetoric. Also as seen here:

As long as they are providing me with adequate care and are understanding of any issues I have then idc what the gender of their significant other is

What LizzyM, myself, and other folks were saying is that the sexual orientation/race/etc does matter, because there are people who want and need to see those identifications displayed by their doctors if that's what will make them most comfortable. Its ok if you don't feel that way, and don't need that added measure, but some folks do.

 

[TwoHighways]

honestly I see where you're coming from but if our objective is to one day live in a society where all are treated equally regardless of sexual or gender identity, then stratifying healthcare providers based on identity, while offering certain short term benefits, is not making progress towards that goal. If anything it just furthers public misconceptions that those in the lgbt community are fundamentally different from the rest of society

Thank you! To what end do we stop dividing ourselves into decreasingly small population subsets?

 

[deleted1001426]

What LizzyM, myself, and other folks were saying is that it does matter the sexual orientation/race/etc does matter, because there are people who want and need to see those identifications displayed by their doctors if that's what will make them most comfortable. Its ok if you don't feel that way, and don't need that added measure, but some folks do.

but isn't the reason why many of us feel that we need to share that with our healthcare providers almost solely due to how society views those who aren't hetero-normative? Maybe I'm being naive, but if we were able to reach a point societaly where sexual preferences were viewed no different from any other personal preferences then this need would cease to exist. While I'm not blind and I do see the benefit of having certain providers publicly identify themselves, I just do not like the idea of promoting something which actively goes against the future that I one day hope to bring to fruition

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Welll i'll hop under this bus w @LizzyM bc I kinda heard the same thing - you guys were kinda saying its arbitrary whether we have lgbt friendly physicians or lgbt physicians. Its sort of like the whole colorblind rhetoric. Also as seen here:

What Lizzym said is that we were arguing that we shouldn’t strive to admit LGBT physicians using the analogy of not admitting women or blacks. That’s literally what she said, and only one person made that argument. The rest of us just said we don’t personally care if our doctors are LGBT/Jewish/etc. or that if you don’t have an LGBT doctor having a doc that knows their healthcare needs should work. It’s a straw man to then say that we don’t think there needs to be LGBT doctors. If we don’t have anyone in medicine from those backgrounds how are we really going to be educated on their healthcare needs? And some people do feel more comfortable with physicians of the same community/background, and they should have that option.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Thank you! To what end do we stop dividing ourselves into decreasingly small population subsets?

honestly I see where you're coming from but if our objective is to one day live in a society where all are treated equally regardless of sexual or gender identity, then stratifying healthcare providers based on identity, while offering certain short term benefits, is not making progress towards that goal. If anything it just furthers public misconceptions that those in the lgbt community are fundamentally different from the rest of society.

edit: once again, adding the caveat that I am by no means an expert in the plight of everyone in the lgbt community and I've undoubtedly been rather fortunate with my experiences thus far so feel free to inform me if I'm terribly missing the mark lol

This is a little misguided. Equality and Homogeniety are two things that you shouldn't confuse. Yes I hope we get to this aforementioned place in society obviously but...there will still be the differences in race/religion/orientation that make us all unique and different. Which our healthcare landscape should mirror as well. And no, what I am saying does nothing of the sort in terms of furthering misconceptions about the lgbt community lol. I'm not saying that us queer folks should be shuttled to containment units against our will - I'm saying that there are some of us who just want to see a queer provider.

This is a false dilemma (to bring up logical fallacies). I don't know how you jumped from A to C. I'm talking about choice, which yes, everyone even queer people are owed in terms of healthcare and you're turning this into something its not.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I'm talking about choice, which yes, everyone even queer people are owed in terms of healthcare and you're turning this into something its not.

I think at least most of us can get behind that.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

but isn't the reason why many of us feel that we need to share that with our healthcare providers almost solely due to how society views those who aren't hetero-normative? Maybe I'm being naive, but if we were able to reach a point societaly where sexual preferences were viewed no different from any other personal preferences then this need would cease to exist. While I'm not blind and I do see the benefit of having certain providers publicly identify themselves, I just do not like the idea of promoting a policy which actively goes against the future that I one day hope to bring to fruition

No- I share this with my healthcare provider when I have questions pertaining to my health. There will always be a reason to share this with your provider, regardless of societal landscape. You can google many examples of this, I don't want to get into it here.

 

[deleted1001426]

No- I share this with my healthcare provider when I have questions pertaining to my health. There will always be a reason to share this with your provider, regardless of societal landscape. You can google many examples of this, I don't want to get into it here.

i was ambiguous, my bad, i meant "share this"as in have a similar sexual orientation. Obviously it is important to talk to your pcp about your sexual identity

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

i was ambiguous, my bad, i meant "share this"as in have a similar sexual orientation. Obviously it is important to talk to your pcp about your sexual identity

We're running a bit in circles here so this'll be my last little ditty. In short, I still think it's important- right now we aren't at a place where everyone is accepting of non-cis non-heteronormative people, you're right. Maybe we will, but in the meantime we can't have the desire to one day be there overshadow the reality that we aren't there.

But even if we "arrive" in that aspect, representation still matters, because the desire to have an aspect of your identity in common with your provider comes from within too. An anecdote from a family member on what I mean here (not an lgbt example, but still a minority issue): this family member had not gotten blood work done before ever. First time getting blood work they had a weirdly low white blood count (My family member is black, pcp was not). PCP was perfectly nice and professional, and thought WBC was low because of trends for people of african descent. My family member didn't know what to do with that and felt uncomfortable speaking up - again, not due to any kind of unprofessional behavior from PCP, there was just a disconnect. Family member sits on it for a bit and then goes to a black PCP who they feel more comfortable bringing up questions and concerns with and who they feel has that added dimension of potentially living what first PCP was talking about. It's as simple as that.

 

[Heliobacter]

but isn't the reason why many of us feel that we need to share that with our healthcare providers almost solely due to how society views those who aren't hetero-normative? Maybe I'm being naive, but if we were able to reach a point societaly where sexual preferences were viewed no different from any other personal preferences then this need would cease to exist. While I'm not blind and I do see the benefit of having certain providers publicly identify themselves, I just do not like the idea of promoting something which actively goes against the future that I one day hope to bring to fruition

I strongly dislike this line of reasoning. If we were able to reach an ideal society. If the world were colorblind. If I became president.

Mathematically speaking, if we could start from any incorrect premise, we could prove any argument. These premises are not yet true of our reality, so while we should strive to make them as real as possible, there are things that can be done in the meantime to make things more equitable.

These are all hypotheticals that may or may not become reality in an appreciable way in our lifetimes. We shouldn't condition everything we do on hypotheticals. There is a need right now that needs to be met for gender and sexual minorities, and trying to discount all that minimizes the real concerns and stresses members of these communities face in their day to day life.

 

[tessellations]

We know overwhelmingly that patients prefer having physicians who are similar to them, especially in regards to things like race and community background. I think this very much extends to sexuality because it is inextricably linked to who we are as people. Of course a white doctor can do a good job of taking care of patients of all races, but they will never have experienced what it is like to be black or asian or hispanic or etc in our country. As a patient, having a provider that has the same experience helps to build trust and understanding. LGBTQ+ people are point blank discriminated in our country, and while non LGBTQ+ doctors can be trained in queer health issues, they will not ever experience that same form of discrimination that their queer patients do. Having an LGBTQ+ provider can help build that same trust and understanding I mentioned before because they will be able to better personally connect with their queer patients. If I have the option, as a bisexual person, it would be nice to have a provider who knows what it is like to be queer in America because it removes an immediate barrier between the two of us.

 

[deleted804295]

Thank you! To what end do we stop dividing ourselves into decreasingly small population subsets?

It's not dividing. It's healing a divide that was artificially created 250 years ago. A divide that made arbitrary concepts such as the one drop rule and blood quantum.

Don't pretend that the ones attempting to fix the problem are creating the divide. Rather it seems like those who are stubborn to this healing are quite happy with having divisions that artificially classify some Americans as inferior.

 

[tessellations]

Something I was thinking today after reading this:

A group of black Tulane University medical students posed at a plantation to show how the past inspired their future

A picture is worth a thousand words and a group of black medical students at Tulane University are hoping their pictures speak volumes about how far they've come.

www.google.com

How amazing would it be for a group of LGBTQ+ med students in NYC to do the same thing in front of Stonewall or another place relevant to queer history.

 

[deleted480308]

There’s no federal protection for sexual orientation or gender identity, and the states are split so right now they can ask you your status in most places. But yeah, there are things they aren’t allowed to ask about. This just isn’t one of them right now for the most part.

Regarding your sexuality, yes they can. Like previous comment, there is no federal protection. In Texas you can be fired for your sexuality. Hence, I can see why some applicants are hesitant/uncomfortable to disclose information regarding sexuality.

I’m aware, i was responding to the claim that employers can legally ask anything...they cannot

Imagine if we were arguing that the race of a physician didn't matter as long as physicians were knowledgeable of the specific health issues of patients in ethnic or racial minority groups and therefore there was no need to admit any URM candidates to medical school. And we don't need to admit women to medical school-- as long as men are knowledgeable of female pathology they can do an adequate job of meeting the needs of that population.

We shouldn’t actually be preferentially admitting any demographic under the premise that no one else can treat their demographic appropriately. That’s both silly and discriminatory

We should admit the most academically/leadership/service qualified people with no regard to demographic

(Rabbit trail risk)

 

[LizzyM]

We shouldn’t actually be preferentially admitting any demographic under the premise that no one else can treat their demographic appropriately. That’s both silly and discriminatory

We should admit the most academically/leadership/service qualified people with no regard to demographic

(Rabbit trail risk)

I am not saying we should preferenctially admit any demographic under the premise that no one else can treat their demographic but I think we need to collect the data and look at the data and identify groups that are URM and work on pipelines to eliminate the UR (underrepresented) in URM. Are LGBTQI URM? How would we know without asking/counting/comparing to overall population?

 

[deleted480308]

I am not saying we should preferenctially admit any demographic under the premise that no one else can treat their demographic but I think we need to collect the data and look at the data and identify groups that are URM and work on pipelines to eliminate the UR (underrepresented) in URM. Are LGBTQI URM? How would we know without asking/counting/comparing to overall population?

I find it just as poor an idea to be preferentially recruiting a demographic just because they are underrepresented. Artificially picking quota goals by demographic is not an appropriate goal. It’s discrimination.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

We know overwhelmingly that patients prefer having physicians who are similar to them, especially in regards to things like race and community background. I think this very much extends to sexuality because it is inextricably linked to who we are as people. Of course a white doctor can do a good job of taking care of patients of all races, but they will never have experienced what it is like to be black or asian or hispanic or etc in our country. As a patient, having a provider that has the same experience helps to build trust and understanding. LGBTQ+ people are point blank discriminated in our country, and while non LGBTQ+ doctors can be trained in queer health issues, they will not ever experience that same form of discrimination that their queer patients do. Having an LGBTQ+ provider can help build that same trust and understanding I mentioned before because they will be able to better personally connect with their queer patients. If I have the option, as a bisexual person, it would be nice to have a provider who knows what it is like to be queer in America because it removes an immediate barrier between the two of us.

I get it but where does it end? If a black patient doesn’t want to see a white doctor, do we accommodate them every time? We certainly don’t when a white patient wants to see a white doctor. We just assume it’s racism. Or when a male doctor wants a male. That’s sexism. Never mind that maybe I just don’t want to be uncomfortable talking about my testicular pain to a young woman I don’t know.

I’m all aboard the diversity in medicine train. I am. I think we should be actively recruiting people from all colors, religions, orientations, etc. I personally don’t think we should lower our admissions standards for that end, but I don’t think we have to. I think we just need to do a better job of raising minorities and women to believe that they are capable of becoming physicians (not to mention the garbage that minorities have to deal with in primary education).

We had a panel about this at my med school and one other student and myself (she’s black and I’m Jewish just for reference) were the only ones who felt like we should just accommodate patients when they want to see different doctors no matter what the reason, because it’s about the patient not us.

 

[TwoHighways]

It's not dividing. It's healing a divide that was artificially created 250 years ago. A divide that made arbitrary concepts such as the one drop rule and blood quantum.

Don't pretend that the ones attempting to fix the problem are creating the divide. Rather it seems like those who are stubborn to this healing are quite happy with having divisions that artificially classify some Americans as inferior.

So as not to misconstrue what you are saying, can you define the problem which you speak of and the healing. Thank you

 

[premed20172017]

I find it just as poor an idea to be preferentially recruiting a demographic just because they are underrepresented. Artificially picking quota goals by demographic is not an appropriate goal. It’s discrimination.

As MANY people have said already, representation MATTERS. Nobody is talking about quotas. People often feel more comfortable going to physicians who look and identify similarly to they do. People feel comfortable seeking care from people who they can relate to. This applies to not only race, but also LGBTQIA, gender, etc. If we don't recruit URMs, we'll have even more ORMs than we already do. I really don't think we need to revert back to the days of medicine where doctors were all white, cis, hetero, males.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

I find it just as poor an idea to be preferentially recruiting a demographic just because they are underrepresented. Artificially picking quota goals by demographic is not an appropriate goal. It’s discrimination.

It's discrimination to you, because you are viewing acceptances as set quotas and the URM's that are accepted as "taking" spots from you. When in reality these are qualified applicants at the end of the day, and their underrepresentation is by definition not infringing upon your ability to get into a medical school. It's important and necessary to have pipelines (which is not preferential admittance), because without those to eliminate barriers faced by URMs, there would be only one type of doctor.

 

[LizzyM]

I find it just as poor an idea to be preferentially recruiting a demographic just because they are underrepresented. Artificially picking quota goals by demographic is not an appropriate goal. It’s discrimination.

Who said anything about quotas? It is the difference between saying "___ need not apply" and "Welcome, ___. We hope you will consider our school when you apply/choose among offers you have." Schools have outreach with special receptions the night before interviews and in conjunction with second look to let appliants/candidates know that they will find a welcoming community and won't the the "only" in a sea of "others". Are you against that?

 

[TwoHighways]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

That’s great but obviously you’re not the only one who exists in the world unless you believe in solipsism.

 

[tessellations]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

IDK, maybe because black patients in the past in our country have been subjected to cruel unethical "medical experiments" and we had an entire government in power basically ignore the AIDS epidemic because they didn't care about gay people?

 

[Heliobacter]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Because patients have prior negative experiences, and knowing that their physician shares an identity with them helps to mitigate that risk and fear.

Interactions don't exist in a vacuum. Just because you want to idealize a situation where somebody can put aside everything they've gone through in their life doesn't mean that it's possible. Lived experiences matter. Please try to remember that a patient is more than what the physician sees during an appointment.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

I can tell.

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this?

I really think this is a perfect time to encourage some independent reading and investigation.

Edit: or see some of the great, very good points raised above^

 

[tessellations]

I get it but where does it end? If a black patient doesn’t want to see a white doctor, do we accommodate them every time? We certainly don’t when a white patient wants to see a white doctor. We just assume it’s racism. Or when a male doctor wants a male. That’s sexism. Never mind that maybe I just don’t want to be uncomfortable talking about my testicular pain to a young woman I don’t know.

I’m all aboard the diversity in medicine train. I am. I think we should be actively recruiting people from all colors, religions, orientations, etc. I personally don’t think we should lower our admissions standards for that end, but I don’t think we have to. I think we just need to do a better job of raising minorities and women to believe that they are capable of becoming physicians (not to mention the garbage that minorities have to deal with in primary education).

We had a panel about this at my med school and one other student and myself (she’s black and I’m Jewish just for reference) were the only ones who felt like we should just accommodate patients when they want to see different doctors no matter what the reason, because it’s about the patient not us.

There are situations where obviously none of us have the choice. But at the very least in the primary care setting, I think patients should be able to choose a doctor for whatever reason they would like, including your examples. I know as a woman I feel more comfortable having women doctors, and I don't think it would be wrong for a man in a setting where he is able to choose, to choose a man. Obviously, in a setting where they isn't a choice, patients shouldn't be refusing for sexist/racist/homophobic reasons. But I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a PCP to be similar to you.

 

[imbesrs]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

My nepali-only speaking green card having aunt would preferably wish to talk to a nepali-speaking physician without the need of a middleman (translator) to discuss her medical issues. Crazy concept

 

[deleted804295]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

There is no breaking this. I feel more comfortable seeing physicians with the same gender and similar cultures as me because they understand me better. I'm not going to go to a physician that understands me less if I have an option not to. One of these options equals worse health outcomes and the other equals better. Not a hard choice to make.

 

[TwoHighways]

Because patients have prior negative experiences, and knowing that their physician shares an identity with them helps to mitigate that risk and fear.

Interactions don't exist in a vacuum. Just because you want to idealize a situation where somebody can put aside everything they've gone through in their life doesn't mean that it's possible. Lived experiences matter. Please try to remember that a patient is more than what the physician sees during an appointment.

It seems as though the answer is self awareness of our own biases and how previous experiences affect our thoughts and ideas we have about others and our world for that matter. I feel that awareness is a powerful first step in being able to disconnect from previous experiences and not let them define us or how we think of others. This is moving the needle in the right direction in my view. YMMV

 

[deleted972488]

Some people in this thread seem to think this is all about admitting under-qualified LGBT people instead of qualified straight people.

Maybe, just maybe, there are LGBT people who are just as qualified (or, in some cases, even more qualified!) AND have some valuable life experiences to share with their medical school class and with the medical profession. Just my two cents.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

There are situations where obviously none of us have the choice. But at the very least in the primary care setting, I think patients should be able to choose a doctor for whatever reason they would like, including your examples. I know as a woman I feel more comfortable having women doctors, and I don't think it would be wrong for a man in a setting where he is able to choose, to choose a man. Obviously, in a setting where they isn't a choice, patients shouldn't be refusing for sexist/racist/homophobic reasons. But I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a PCP to be similar to you.

Agreed, and that was my argument at the small group too. It got met with strong opposition and basically almost everyone felt like the patients on an inpatient setting should just be forced to be uncomfortable.