Med Schools Recruiting for LGBT students

[DermViser]

One could reasonably assume that is not what @touchpause13 was talking about...

Telling a physician you are LGBTQ, changes for what the physician screens for. That's fact.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[allantois]

I will be glad if we could all agree that good clinical "judgement" should not go any further than identifying risk factors associated with the group. But this requires a certain level of open-mindedness from a healthcare provider.

 

[touchpause13]

Telling a physician you are LGBTQ, changes for what the physician screens for. That's fact.

Do you just not understand what the word judging means...?

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

Telling a physician you are LGBTQ, changes for what the physician screens for. That's fact.

But there is a difference between making a judgement based on reason and fact and an irrational judgement based on prejudice, which is what @touchpause13 was saying.

 

[DermViser]

But there is a difference between making a judgement based on reason and fact and an irrational judgement based on prejudice, which is what @touchpause13 was saying.

So the assumption made that LGBTQ people are more promiscuous is ok (and screening accordingly), bc it's based on "reason and fact"?

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

So the assumption made that LGBTQ people are more promiscuous is ok (and screening accordingly), bc it's based on "reason and fact"?

No, the hypothetical teenager that @touchpause13 mentioned is most likely not any more promiscuous than the general population. And the judgement @touchpause13 was talking about is if you were disgusted by the teenager's sexual activity.

 

[DermViser]

No, the hypothetical teenager that @touchpause13 mentioned is most likely not any more promiscuous than the general population. And the judgement @touchpause13 was talking about is if you were disgusted by the teenager's sexual activity.

How do you know? The average age of sexual intercourse is already very young. Physicians are humans. Like it or not, you can't control a physician's inner feelings and beliefs.

 

[edgerock24]

Coming out to a physician is difficult, especially for teens. Having an openly LGBTQ physician would help quell any fears they might have about being judged

I can see where this could be helpful.

 

[touchpause13]

How do you know? The average age of sexual intercourse is already very young. Physicians are humans. Like it or not, you can't control a physician's inner feelings and beliefs.

Having feelings and beliefs are fine, but using the position of power as a physician in order to basically tell me or any lgbtq person they are dirty or a sinner or a bad person because of their orientation or try and make them not gay is a problem. And that's what I was worried about.

 

[DermViser]

Having feelings and beliefs are fine, but using the position of power as a physician in order to basically tell me or any lgbtq person they are dirty or a sinner or a bad person because of their orientation or try and make them not gay is a problem. And that's what I was worried about.

So then if a physician used their power as a physician to tell a LGBTQ person that bc of their orientation they are at higher risk of contracting certain STDs, higher risk of depression, etc. would this be judgement or not?

 

[touchpause13]

So then if a physician used their power as a physician to tell a LGBTQ person that bc of their orientation they are at higher risk of contracting certain STDs, higher risk of depression, etc. would this be judgement or not?

Would you tell a black person that because they are black they have a higher risk for sickle cell?

What's the point?

 

[DermViser]

Would you tell a black person that because they are black they have a higher risk for sickle cell?

What's the point?

My point is that judgement is constantly made on the medical side of things, whether it's race, sexual orientation, weight, etc.

 

[touchpause13]

My point is that judgement is constantly made on the medical side of things, whether it's race, sexual orientation, weight, etc.

Obviously I wasn't referring to making a clinical judgement, I was referring to making value judgements about LGBTQ people and giving them worse care because of it. Context. It's important.

 

[DermViser]

Obviously I wasn't referring to making a clinical judgement, I was referring to making value judgements about LGBTQ people and giving them worse care because of it. Context. It's important.

My point is that many times, value judgements often follow clinical judgements.

 

[touchpause13]

My point is that many times, value judgements often follow clinical judgements.

Which is why knowing that your physician is LGBTQ or at least LGBTQ-friendly is something that may be important for patients.

I don't think anyone wants to go to a physician who they feel is judging them, especially if you are already part of a marginalized community.

 

[tantacles]

So then if a physician used their power as a physician to tell a LGBTQ person that bc of their orientation they are at higher risk of contracting certain STDs, higher risk of depression, etc. would this be judgement or not?

While I see the point you're trying to make, my perception is that you're purposely ignoring the connotation of the word "judgment" to make a semantic point while not addressing the point that I think my peers are trying to make.

Have you ever gone to a doctor and had him say, "Wow, I can't believe you're dating a woman. That's awful. Men shouldn't date women; that goes against nature and is a horrible health choice."? Have you ever heard anyone say anything like this on television? Has anyone ever picketed the funerals of one of your friends because they were heterosexual? These things happen to LGBT individuals with regard to their sexual orientation and gender identity more than it should.

So to steer the conversation back to where, arguably, it should be, LGBT people deserve to be treated in an environment where they feel comfortable, and that doesn't necessarily mean putting them with a physician who is LGBT, but it does mean having a physician population with a good representation of sexual orientation and gender identity so that that perspective has representation in medicine.

 

[karayaa]

So to steer the conversation back to where, arguably, it should be, LGBT people deserve to be treated in an environment where they feel comfortable, and that doesn't necessarily mean putting them with a physician who is LGBT, but it does mean having a physician population with a good representation of sexual orientation and gender identity so that that perspective has representation in medicine.

Word.

 

[ex_animo_92]

Definitely add Albert Einstein to the list. They have an LGBT student organization (EAGLBT), as well as an LGBT steering committee that "Helps develop and attract qualified LGBT students and students interested in LGBT-related health care disparities and health care to Einstein’s academic programs" among other things.

(also slightly shocked that someone didn't know what LGBT stood for)

 

[toutou]

While I see the point you're trying to make, my perception is that you're purposely ignoring the connotation of the word "judgment" to make a semantic point while not addressing the point that I think my peers are trying to make.

Have you ever gone to a doctor and had him say, "Wow, I can't believe you're dating a woman. That's awful. Men shouldn't date women; that goes against nature and is a horrible health choice."? Have you ever heard anyone say anything like this on television? Has anyone ever picketed the funerals of one of your friends because they were heterosexual? These things happen to LGBT individuals with regard to their sexual orientation and gender identity more than it should.

So to steer the conversation back to where, arguably, it should be, LGBT people deserve to be treated in an environment where they feel comfortable, and that doesn't necessarily mean putting them with a physician who is LGBT, but it does mean having a physician population with a good representation of sexual orientation and gender identity so that that perspective has representation in medicine.

LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE

 

[BeancheBlanco]

So then if a physician used their power as a physician to tell a LGBTQ person that bc of their orientation they are at higher risk of contracting certain STDs, higher risk of depression, etc. would this be judgement or not?

Just to clarify, LGBTQ people are NOT at a higher risk for STIs or depression. You are lumping a huge group into "men who have sex with men". For example, the L in LGBTQ stands for lesbians, who have a smaller risk for STIs than heterosexuals. Additionally, it is not "because of their orientation" that certain groups might be at higher risk for STIs, depression, or "etc".

What you are saying is not judgement. It is uninformed and inaccurate.

 

[DermViser]

Just to clarify, LGBTQ people are NOT at a higher risk for STIs or depression. You are lumping a huge group into "men who have sex with men". For example, the L in LGBTQ stands for lesbians, who have a smaller risk for STIs than heterosexuals. Additionally, it is not "because of their orientation" that certain groups might be at higher risk for STIs, depression, or "etc".

What you are saying is not judgement. It is uninformed and inaccurate.

While this thread ended back in July, I'll be happy to answer you. Homosexuals are very much at higher risk for depression. Study after study supports this. You are correct, however, I should have clarified, gay men are at much higher risk for certain STDs.

 

[touchpause13]

While this thread ended back in July, I'll be happy to answer you. Homosexuals are very much at higher risk for depression. Study after study supports this. You are correct, however, I should have clarified, gay men are at much higher risk for certain STDs.

Men who have sex with men =/= gay men. (Sometimes but not always)

Also to clarify the higher depression rates are due to minority stress, not because there is inherently worse mental health in LGBTQ folks. We just have to deal with bullying, discrimination, hate crimes, etc at higher rates than straight people.

 

[tantacles]

Men who have sex with men =/= gay men. (Sometimes but not always)

Also to clarify the higher depression rates are due to minority stress, not because there is inherently worse mental health in LGBTQ folks. We just have to deal with bullying, discrimination, hate crimes, etc at higher rates than straight people.

We are at a higher risk of depression than the general population, regardless of the specific etiology of the increased risk.

 

[touchpause13]

We are at a higher risk of depression than the general population, regardless of the specific etiology of the increased risk.

agreed.

 

[Sirphillup]

If I am not wrong, Harvard targets LGBTI applicants. They encourage applicants to identify under that umbrella (if applicable) in their secondary.

 

[DermViser]

agreed.

We are at a higher risk of depression than the general population, regardless of the specific etiology of the increased risk.

Thank you. That is what I was (obviously) saying. As a medical provider, the etiology of that depression is for all intents and purposes irrelevant with regard to what that provider can change.

 

[Tappinfool66]

Sorry if these schools were already mentioned:
-UCSF asks about your sexual orientation and the gender you (will) identify as when you enroll at UCSF.
-Penn asks if you would be interested in attending an LGBTQ breakfast before your interview.
-I think Jeff asks you to check a box if you identify as LGBTQ.

 

[hellanutella]

Another one I don't think was mentioned, but after receiving an II from Vanderbilt, they'll ask for your gender identity on the hosting form. They've been one of the few schools I've encountered to ask for gender identity vs. sex [with only strict male, female, and (rarely) "decline to answer" as options].

Northwestern also has a "Reach OUT" program that will pair LGBTQI+ interviewees with current students. Don't know what the program involves, but if any current students or previous interviewees could chime in, that'd be lovely.

This was mentioned by Ace-Co-A in a previous post, but UVA specifically mentioned on my interview day that they consider LGBTQI+ underrepresented in medicine. They don't have a checkbox option on their secondary like SF or Northwestern, so I think they base this off of your essays (and maybe) activities.

 

[Scribblers]

Minnesota, Michigan, and Mount Sinai have all been very accomodating of LGBT applicants from my experience so far. Both Minnesota and Michigan had students/resources available at the interview day. Mount Sinai actually went so far as to offer an option for an LGBT host.

I would point out that schools that offer an explicit checkbox for gender/sexual identity don't necessarily use that information for admissions purposes. It could just be demographic information (though they fact that they even think to include those areas is probably a good sign).

 

[BeancheBlanco]

While this thread ended back in July, I'll be happy to answer you. Homosexuals are very much at higher risk for depression. Study after study supports this. You are correct, however, I should have clarified, gay men are at much higher risk for certain STDs.

I didn't deny that homosexuals are at a higher risk for depression. I denied that homosexuals are at a higher risk for depression "because of their orientation". I think we are on the same page, just a clarification of words.

 

[tantacles]

I didn't deny that homosexuals are at a higher risk for depression. I denied that homosexuals are at a higher risk for depression "because of their orientation". I think we are on the same page, just a clarification of words.

The statement that LGBT people are at higher risk for depression has only three potential causal directionalities.

1. Depression makes you more likely to be LGBT
2. Being LGBT makes you more likely to be depressed.
3. Some third factor links being LGBT and being depressed.

Unless you view the first potential causal pathway as valid (I don't), you're only choosing between two causal pathways.

 

[QAsPsych]

The statement that LGBT people are at higher risk for depression has only three potential causal directionalities.

1. Depression makes you more likely to be LGBT
2. Being LGBT makes you more likely to be depressed.
3. Some third factor links being LGBT and being depressed.

Unless you view the first potential causal pathway as valid (I don't), you're only choosing between two causal pathways.

The second is exactly as ridiculous as the first. It's the 3rd one. With "some 3rd factor" being discrimination/bullying/etc.

 

[tantacles]

The second is exactly as ridiculous as the first. It's the 3rd one. With "some 3rd factor" being discrimination/bullying/etc.

Yes, but you can reasonably extend that the bullying is due to the fact that one is LGBT, and thus being LGBT causes depression. No one is saying that LGBT people are hormonally or genetically predisposed to depression. However I certainly believe there is a causal link there, whether or not the logical progression is mediated by bullying, isolation, or any other factor.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

Yes, but you can reasonably extend that the bullying is due to the fact that one is LGBT, and thus being LGBT causes depression. No one is saying that LGBT people are hormonally or genetically predisposed to depression. However I certainly believe there is a causal link there, whether or not the logical progression is mediated by bullying, isolation, or any other factor.

Or, openly LGBT people tend to be better educated and more intelligent than the general population, which also correlates to higher rates of depression. We can speculate all we want.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...aight_people_or_do_they_just_work_harder.html

 

[touchpause13]

Or, openly LGBT people tend to be better educated and more intelligent than the general population, which also correlates to higher rates of depression. We can speculate all we want.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...aight_people_or_do_they_just_work_harder.html

Interesting article. I always considered higher education as a way to get out of a crappy situation. Also i felt a responsibility to be a leader in the community and give back if I could.

Although I think that the self reporting may be a bigger factor, if you are well educated amd lgbt I feel like you are more likely to be out because you are around a more accepting group of people.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

Interesting article. I always considered higher education as a way to get out of a crappy situation. Also i felt a responsibility to be a leader in the community and give back if I could.

Although I think that the self reporting may be a bigger factor, if you are well educated amd lgbt I feel like you are more likely to be out because you are around a more accepting group of people.

I think it might be more of a self-reporting bias myself. I was just trying to stir the pot a little!

 

[otterxavier]

That Slate article is some serious BS. I lost any respect for the quality of the reporting and the integrity of the study once they started speculating that being gay is on par with being a vegetarian, as a choice to discipline and repress evolutionary impulses. Plus, although gay people are more likely to be more educated, less educated people are more likely to identify as gay. From the Williams Institute (generally the best source for demographic data about LGBT folks in the U.S.):
"A larger portion of lower educated Americans identify as LGBT compared to college graduates. Contrary to many studies using smaller data samples, Americans with lower levels of education are more likely than their higher educated counterparts to identify as LGBT. Among those with a high school education or less, 3.5% identify as LGBT compared to 2.8% of those with a college degree and 3.2% of those with a graduate education. LGBT identification is highest among those with some college education but not a college degree, at 4.0%." (source)

 

[otterxavier]

So then if a physician used their power as a physician to tell a LGBTQ person that bc of their orientation they are at higher risk of contracting certain STDs, higher risk of depression, etc. would this be judgement or not?

Also, setting aside all arguments about the causality of depression in LGBTQ people... as a gay man in a long-term monogamous partnership, if a doctor told me that I'm at higher risk of contracting an STI because I'm gay, I'd take that as a hint to find a new doctor. Behavior creates risk, not orientation.

 

[DermViser]

Also, setting aside all arguments about the causality of depression in LGBTQ people... as a gay man in a long-term monogamous partnership, if a doctor told me that I'm at higher risk of contracting an STI because I'm gay, I'd take that as a hint to find a new doctor. Behavior creates risk, not orientation.

You are free to do so, if the facts hurt your feelings. However, statistics don't lie. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk for certain STDs. That's just a fact. He won't say you're higher risk directly, but you will be screened for STDs. Risk factors matter and you can't change epidemiology.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

You are free to do so, if the facts hurt your feelings. However, statistics don't lie. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk for certain STDs. That's just a fact. He won't say you're higher risk directly, but you will be screened for STDs. Risk factors matter and you can't change epidemiology.

He said he had sex with a man, not men.
His PCP should know better than to ask that after he or she is already familiar with him and his relationship status.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

You are free to do so, if the facts hurt your feelings. However, statistics don't lie. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk for certain STDs. That's just a fact. He won't say you're higher risk directly, but you will be screened for STDs. Risk factors matter and you can't change epidemiology.

And don't try and talk about semantics, when you've already demonstrated your inability to interpret someone's intended meaning in this thread...

 

[DermViser]

He said he had sex with a man, not men.
His PCP should know better than to ask that after he or she is already familiar with him and his relationship status.

"men who have sex with men" is a medical phrase used in the literature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

His PCP (at least a good one) will note this in his sexual history, and will do his Assessment and Plan accordingly with regards to followup. He won't be asking every visit if he's gay.

 

[DermViser]

And don't try and talk about semantics, when you've already demonstrated your inability to interpret someone's intended meaning in this thread...

You mean the same way my sentence about depression was interpreted (wrongly) to mean that the actual orientation itself causes depression?

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Yes, but you can reasonably extend that the bullying is due to the fact that one is LGBT, and thus being LGBT causes depression. No one is saying that LGBT people are hormonally or genetically predisposed to depression. However I certainly believe there is a causal link there, whether or not the logical progression is mediated by bullying, isolation, or any other factor.

I think it's more precise and productive to say LGBT people are higher risk for depression "because of bullying" rather than "because they are LGBT". The act of being LGBT isn't making them at a higher risk for depression. It isn't the characteristic that is directly causing the risk. Like I said before though, I think we are on the same page. It's just word choice here.

 

[otterxavier]

You are free to do so, if the facts hurt your feelings. However, statistics don't lie. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk for certain STDs. That's just a fact. He won't say you're higher risk directly, but you will be screened for STDs. Risk factors matter and you can't change epidemiology.

Men who have sex with men have a higher incidence of certain STIs. That's a fact and I'm not disputing it. I also think we agree that it's appropriate to discuss and test for STIs with all patients, as indicated. My point was that risk is a function of behavior, not of identity, and what's true for a population on average isn't necessarily relevant for a specific individual.

STI risk is not an inherent feature of being gay; it's a result of certain behaviors that are more prevalent among MSM than in the general population (having multiple casual partners, having unprotected anal sex, etc.). But not all MSM engage in those behaviors, and they may not be relevant to the patient who's actually sitting in front of you.

For the same reason, the southern U.S. has a relatively high incidence of diabetes, but it would be inappropriate to suggest to someone who has a BMI of 20, eats a balanced diet, and exercises daily that they are at risk for diabetes just because they live in Alabama.

I hate to harp on this, especially because this thread had the potential to be useful before it fell into a semantic abyss. But it gets reeeeeally old to, e.g., be tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea and HIV when I present with a persistent sore throat. Likewise, one of my friends who is trans found that when he transitioned from living as a straight woman to living as a gay man, his doctor's assessment of his STI risk changed completely, even though literally nothing about his sexual behavior had changed. That's not effective screening and it's not responsive to patients' actual needs.

 

[DermViser]

Men who have sex with men have a higher incidence of certain STIs. That's a fact and I'm not disputing it. I also think we agree that it's appropriate to discuss and test for STIs with all patients, as indicated. My point was that risk is a function of behavior, not of identity, and what's true for a population on average isn't necessarily relevant for a specific individual.

STI risk is not an inherent feature of being gay; it's a result of certain behaviors that are more prevalent among MSM than in the general population (having multiple casual partners, having unprotected anal sex, etc.). But not all MSM engage in those behaviors, and they may not be relevant to the patient who's actually sitting in front of you.

For the same reason, the southern U.S. has a relatively high incidence of diabetes, but it would be inappropriate to suggest to someone who has a BMI of 20, eats a balanced diet, and exercises daily that they are at risk for diabetes just because they live in Alabama.

I hate to harp on this, especially because this thread had the potential to be useful before it fell into a semantic abyss. But it gets reeeeeally old to, e.g., be tested for pharyngeal gonorrhea and HIV when I present with a persistent sore throat. Likewise, one of my friends who is trans found that when he transitioned from living as a straight woman to living as a gay man, his doctor's assessment of his STI risk changed completely, even though literally nothing about his sexual behavior had changed. That's not effective screening and it's not responsive to patients' actual needs.

Risk for diabetes is not based on nor restricted to regionality. If the person is overweight or obese they are at higher risk for diabetes. Being born in the South is not a biomarker for risk of getting diabetes.

Wait a minute, you're shocked that when homosexuals are homosexuals they get screened and treated differently? Really? If you are a gay male, you are at risk for certain disease conditions many of which can present insidiously (i.e. your persistent pharyngitis).

 

[otterxavier]

Risk for STIs is not based on nor restricted to sexual orientation. If a person has multiple casual partners or does not use a barrier method they are at higher risk for STIs. Being gay is not a biomarker for risk of STIs.

I'm shocked that a doctor would choose a course of treatment based solely on a patient's sexual orientation and not supported by any other aspect of the patient's behavior, symptoms, or history. (The persistent pharyngitis turned out to be mono, which is more prevalent than pharyngeal gonorrhea both in the general population and among MSM, was a close fit for my other symptoms, and based on my history was much more likely to have been exposed to.)

 

[deleted480308]

Some body parts transmit some things better than other body parts. If a doc is told your sexual history involves a use of certain parts (monogamous or not) there is an imcreased chance of certain disease/flora coming into play.

I don't think it's the same as assumig promiscuity which seems to be the reaction some are having.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

You mean the same way my sentence about depression was interpreted (wrongly) to mean that the actual orientation itself causes depression?

No, the way you interpreted the word "judged" to mean "assessed." When it was obvious that it meant being judgmental or prejudiced.

 

[touchpause13]

I think the issue here really is communication. If you just keep getting screened for STIs without any explanation I would be a little miffed too. Just like when my only partner was female I got miffed about being lectured about not using contraception. if your doctor were just to say, hey I just need to rule this out first because of whatever reason I feel like the encounter would be much more positive.

Although I'm totally thrown for a loop by the transman thing. Maybe the assumption would be that his partners would now be men who have sex with men, therefore putting him at higher risk? Idk.