my hair is died purple

[allantois]

wow, i really sparked something.
i should mention, i've already been interviewing with a blonde streak that wasn't terribly noticeable but definitely present, and still managed to finagle an acceptance or two.

still, i know purple hair doesn't scream professionalism. I kinda needed a snarky comment to push me in the right direction.

blonde streaks are fine because blonde is a natural hair color unlike purple.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[el_duderino]

Threads like these repeatedly give me the impression that doctors spend more time imagining patient reactions and opinions than actually listening to them.

Those are pretty big words from a premed to actual professionals.

Maybe, just maybe, those actual professionals with years or decades of actual experience have some clue what they're talking about. Instead, no, you are throwing out their collective experiences and words for no reason other than the fact that you're having a knee-jerk reaction to something they're saying about your personal appearance.

 

[mehc012]

I have spent my entire adult life listening to my patients and the patients of my residents and students. I am speaking now for them, not the "establishment."
I really don't care how you dress or what color you dye your hair.
I will care, however if you are assigned to my service to care for our patients.

I apologize, that comment came off a lot more harsh and directed at you than was intended. I was frustrated at this thread in general and not at you, and I am sorry for making it seem like an attack or commentary on you or your patient care.

However, I still find the entire concept of dictating the physicians' hair color to appease the possible biases of their patients to be both patronizing (to the patients) and unnecessary. I think the concerns about the impact of a bit of hair dye are overblown, and therefore I feel that it is unnecessarily limiting to those who want to dye their hair.

I actually do not dye my hair, and as I said above, have only done so once during a spring break trip. I do understand the appeal and sometimes wish that I could do so myself. I have never felt that the concern in doing so lay in the patients or in changing patient-physician interaction, but 100% only in the possibility of backlash from supervisors. After reading this thread, I feel so even more strongly. So, yes, we do absolutely disagree on this front (in that I do not believe that it negatively impacts patient care in any way), but that does not mean that I have less respect for you or any other thing that we discuss and I am sorry that my phrasing implied otherwise.

 

[mehc012]

Those are pretty big words from a premed to actual professionals.

Maybe, just maybe, those actual professionals with years or decades of actual experience have some clue what they're talking about. Instead, no, you are throwing out their collective experiences and words for no reason other than the fact that you're having a knee-jerk reaction to something they're saying about your personal appearance.

I have apologized to @gyngyn for my phrasing there. I agree that that was out of line.

However, I must again reiterate that I do not have dyed hair - I am not arguing this line because it supports me or reflects on my appearance. I am arguing it because I strongly believe that concerns of hair dye affecting patient care are overblown and therefore the hardline approach to it is unnecessary.

 

[gyngyn]

I apologize, that comment came off a lot more harsh and directed at you than was intended. I was frustrated at this thread in general and not at you, and I am sorry for making it seem like an attack or commentary on you or your patient care.

However, I still find the entire concept of dictating the physicians' hair color to appease the possible biases of their patients to be both patronizing (to the patients) and unnecessary. I think the concerns about the impact of a bit of hair dye are overblown, and therefore I feel that it is unnecessarily limiting to those who want to dye their hair.

I actually do not dye my hair, and as I said above, have only done so once during a spring break trip. I do understand the appeal and sometimes wish that I could do so myself. I have never felt that the concern in doing so lay in the patients or in changing patient-physician interaction, but 100% only in the possibility of backlash from supervisors. After reading this thread, I feel so even more strongly. So, yes, we do absolutely disagree on this front (in that I do not believe that it negatively impacts patient care in any way), but that does not mean that I have less respect for you or any other thing that we discuss and I am sorry that my phrasing implied otherwise.

I accept your apology.

 

[JPA178]

Just to weigh in on this discussion, medicine is not the only field that requires a professional appearance. Try working in finance or law - and I'm not talking about the local bank branch in your town or an ambulance chaser firm that advertises on daytime TV, I'm talking Wall Street or a top 25 corporate/litigation firm. If you show up there with streaks in your hair or visible tattoos, you'll be shown the door right away. A friend of mine who works in banking told me a story about an associate who came to work wearing a cheap, tacky tie. The Managing Director walked over to him and cut it with a pair of scissors, slammed a $100 bill on the desk, and told him to not come back until he learned how to dress himself. This is an extreme example. However, in professional, "white collar" occupations, maintaining an appropriate appearance is important because it not only displays your values, but it reflects the values of your organization. Dying your hair an unnatural color, in my opinion and in the opinion of most healthcare organizations, shows a lack of maturity and respect for authority. This is not a quality that is desired in a physician. Just my $0.02.

 

[el_duderino]

I apologize, that comment came off a lot more harsh and directed at you than was intended. I was frustrated at this thread in general and not at you, and I am sorry for making it seem like an attack or commentary on you or your patient care.

However, I still find the entire concept of dictating the physicians' hair color to appease the possible biases of their patients to be both patronizing (to the patients) and unnecessary. I think the concerns about the impact of a bit of hair dye are overblown, and therefore I feel that it is unnecessarily limiting to those who want to dye their hair.

I actually do not dye my hair, and as I said above, have only done so once during a spring break trip. I do understand the appeal and sometimes wish that I could do so myself. I have never felt that the concern in doing so lay in the patients or in changing patient-physician interaction, but 100% only in the possibility of backlash from supervisors. After reading this thread, I feel so even more strongly. So, yes, we do absolutely disagree on this front (in that I do not believe that it negatively impacts patient care in any way), but that does not mean that I have less respect for you or any other thing that we discuss and I am sorry that my phrasing implied otherwise.

No one seems to be dictating anything. I think one guy talked about a particular hospital or something having a hair policy, but that's not what this discussion is about.

The discussion is about sacrificing some measure of personal expression in order to give patients the best treatment and experience possible.

 

[mehc012]

No one seems to be dictating anything. I think one guy talked about a particular hospital or something having a hair policy, but that's not what this discussion is about.

The discussion is about sacrificing some measure of personal expression in order to give patients the best treatment and experience possible.

Right, and it has mostly died (dyed? sorry, couldn't help it) out...I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference to patient care, and you do. I have seen your arguments and think they're overblown. You think I'm underestimating the impact. At this point, discussion isn't doing much simply because it is not a lack of understanding of each others' points (at least I do not think so), but a simple disagreement on one. That's how it goes sometimes. I enjoyed the discussion and learned something anyway, so I thank you for your time and I think I'll stop now before I get caught up and say anything else stupid to someone I respect.

 

[el_duderino]

I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference to patient care

What are you basing that opinion on?

 

[mehc012]

What are you basing that opinion on?

Interactions I've witnessed and the lack of concrete support for the opposing argument beyond 'everyone knows that people with dyed hair are considered immature, what if patients do not listen to their doctors because of it'. I just haven't heard anything that sounds convincing to me thus far, and neither side has anything particularly concrete to go on here.

 

[EvenStevens]

It's the expectations of the people you're serving, which in this instance are reflected in the expectations of the adcoms.

....every single one of posts agrees witht his but you keep on saying the same thing as if i'm combating you on the point

 

[Goro]

It's odd that having a tat used to be a sign of rebellion; now it's a sign of conformity.

Im at LAX returning from vacation with my brother to a location where lots of guys come back with tribal tats.

My brother is not a medical professional, not a baby boomer and is generally laid back. While waiting for our bags, not more than 15 minutes ago, a woman walked by with pink hair and he asked what I thought. This led to a conversation about the tats that our fellow travelers had and he said, "I don't want to see a doctor or any other professional with tattoos or unnatural colored hair." His take on it is that such things are evidence of being ego centric.

So it's not just Baby Boomers or old fashioned doctors that think that way. Hide or change the hair color/tats/piercings/ghetto fab nails etc

Actually yes. When you put on the white coat, you ARE going into character, as the actors say.
So I have to pretend to be whoever the patient most respects?

 

[CherryRedDracul]

Do not under any circumstances attend a medical school interview with purple dye in your hair.

Unless you want to go out of your way to prove everyone wrong so you can rub it in their faces later.

I have a friend who rocked snake bite piercings throughout the preclinical years. Granted, he would take them out for professional settings like conferences and on the floors.

FYI, these are snake bites:

OP, interviewers still expect conservatively dressed interviewers, so standing out with purple hair is very risky to do. Sucks, but that's the game. Once you become an attending physician, you get a lot more freedom for your individuality. We have a plastic surgeon at our hospital who has a bunch of tattoos, including a graffiti-styled "Veritas Aequitas" tattoo on his forearm.

 

[blackroses]

No one seems to be dictating anything. I think one guy talked about a particular hospital or something having a hair policy, but that's not what this discussion is about.

The discussion is about sacrificing some measure of personal expression in order to give patients the best treatment and experience possible.

You mean to give most patients the best experience possible. Your hair color does not affect your treatment of the patient.

Nitpicky, yes, but everyone should be more aware of how things like this are phrased.

Me choosing to dye my hair pink, or blue, or red, or purple, does not affect my TREATMENT of the patient. It might affect the patient's experience.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Some of you are overly idealistic about how demanding patients are and how comfortable they feel commenting on things that have nothing to do with the care offered. Now, it is true that my specialty is full of diva types but yes, I've had patients complain about tattoos on my office staff, comment about the weight of one my staff, complain that we don't have candy/cookies in the waiting room or the channel the tv is tuned to, etc. They would not hesitate to comment on hair color in a negative fashion.

I can't speak for other physicians but I've got enough things to worry about without having something trivial (that can be controlled) to deal with/hear about. I'd rather limit the amount of complaints.

 

[mehc012]

Some of you are overly idealistic about how demanding patients are and how comfortable they feel commenting on things that have nothing to do with the care offered. Now, it is true that my specialty is full of diva types but yes, I've had patients complain about tattoos on my office staff, comment about the weight of one my staff, complain that we don't have candy/cookies in the waiting room or the channel the tv is tuned to, etc. They would not hesitate to comment on hair color in a negative fashion.

I can't speak for other physicians but I've got enough things to worry about without having something trivial (that can be controlled) to deal with/hear about. I'd rather limit the amount of complaints.

I don't mind them complaining about hair. For the patients you are describing, they'd likely find something else to complain about anyway. Making them ecstatically happy is not the goal, and shouldn't be. If it were, the waiting room candy bowl would just be full of Norco and Dilaudid. The point is that you are not compromising the patients' care nor disrespecting them.

 

[allantois]

I live in an area with many senior citizens and I can tell (from my volunteering experiences with them in a clinical setting) that they absolutely do make judgements on how doctors/nurses/etc look and they do indeed complain without any hesitation about things they find troubling. Do I agree with them? Not necessarily, but in an area saturated with physicians you can't just tell your patients to go find another doctor who doesn't have purple hair because they absolutely will go and find one.

At least unlike many other professionals doctors are well compensated for having to make dress code sacrifices.

 

[mehc012]

I live in an area with many senior citizens and I can tell (from my volunteering experiences with them in a clinical setting) that they absolutely do make judgements on how doctors/nurses/etc look and they would absolutely complain without any hesitation about things they find troubling. Do I agree with them? Not necessarily, but in an area saturated with physicians you can't just tell your patients to go find another doctor who doesn't have purple hair because they absolutely will go and find one.

Yeah, you can. It just may be more economically prudent to keep your natural hair color. That is an entirely different beast than 'if you dye your hair you are a disgusting person who should not be a doctor,' an attitude which has definitely been put forth in this thread at some point. Your point is more akin to the 'go for it, but you will have less success in admissions' point, which I don't think anyone has really argued against.

 

[TheRhymenocerous]

I think the problem isn't the actual aesthetic so much as what it says about the person. While it's more acceptable today than it might have been a couple decades ago, having a green hair or crazy piercings is still a rebellious style and anyone who adopts it is no doubt aware of that. I, for one, don't want a doctor who is trying to look like a rebel. That's probably one of the last qualities I would look for in someone I'm trusting with my health and well being.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I don't mind them complaining about hair. For the patients you are describing, they'd likely find something else to complain about anyway. Making them ecstatically happy is not the goal, and shouldn't be. If it were, the waiting room candy bowl would just be full of Norco and Dilaudid. The point is that you are not compromising the patients' care nor disrespecting them.

Actually that's not the (or my) point.

I assume that hair color has nothing to do with patient care.

However, patients do not assume that.

In a buyer's market, they can simply go to another provider they feel "more comfortable" with. Why would you risk that? The same goes for my office staff: there are plenty of people who want their job, so why risk it alienating patients (and the providers) with tattoos, unusual hair colors, etc?

And rest assured, you may not "mind them complaining about hair" but once you're in practice, you almost assuredly will mind the endless litany of stupid complaints which have absolutely nothing to do with you or the care you provide. Your time with each patient is limited; the last thing you need to do is to spend 50% of it fielding such complaints.

 

[mehc012]

Actually that's not the (or my) point.

I assume that hair color has nothing to do with patient care.

However, patients do not assume that.

In a buyer's market, they can simply go to another provider they feel "more comfortable" with. Why would you risk that? The same goes for my office staff: there are plenty of people who want their job, so why risk it alienating patients (and the providers) with tattoos, unusual hair colors, etc?

And rest assured, you may not "mind them complaining about hair" but once you're in practice, you almost assuredly will mind the endless litany of stupid complaints which have absolutely nothing to do with you or the care you provide. Your time with each patient is limited; the last thing you need to do is to spend 50% of it fielding such complaints.

I suppose I just take the endless litany of complaints as a given in any service industry and figure if it's not one thing, it's another

At any rate, my main point of contention in this thread was the repeated assertion that dying your hair would cause patients to get worse care and therefore not conforming your appearance to what they want is disgusting and, I quote, "deplorable and irresponsible". The fact that that can even be said seriously without receiving any backlash whatsoever indicates to me that the bias against dyed hair is incredibly deep. That was the debate that I was in, and I seemed to be one of only two people expressing any concerns that this attitude was insane overkill.

I'm fine with advising against it, or stating that patients may leave your practice or you may do more poorly when interviewing. Those are all realistic concerns that people face when choosing to dye their hair, and should be aware of before choosing to do so. Fair enough. But at this point, that discussion is incredibly minor when running parallel in the same thread with 'people who choose to dye their hair are despicable for making that decision'. When I say "I don't care", I'm not trying to be flippant or to pretend that I will have zero financial concerns in the future, or will be such a big shot that I can tell my patients 'my way or the highway'. I mean that, in the context of this thread, I am far less concerned with practical 'this is the way it is, do what is best for you' and far more concerned with the underlying attitude that some posters seem to have that making your own decisions about your personal appearance makes you a terrible person or a horrible doctor.

 

[Ismet]

I suppose I just take the endless litany of complaints as a given in any service industry and figure if it's not one thing, it's another

At any rate, my main point of contention in this thread was the repeated assertion that dying your hair would cause patients to get worse care and therefore not conforming your appearance to what they want is disgusting and, I quote, "deplorable and irresponsible". The fact that that can even be said seriously without receiving any backlash whatsoever indicates to me that the bias against dyed hair is incredibly deep. That was the debate that I was in, and I seemed to be one of only two people expressing any concerns that this attitude was insane overkill.

Oh come on, jonnythan was saying that your attitude of "I don't care what patients think of me" was what was "deplorable and irresponsible." It's extremely naive to think that a patient's perception of you doesn't matter at all or shouldn't be taken into consideration. Yeah it's not going to drastically affect how the patient is treated, but that's not how they see it. You wouldn't wear ripped jeans or clearly dirty clothes or tons of gaudy jewelry to the hospital. Your hair is part of your professional outfit. It needs to be well groomed and should be a natural color. Same goes for nail polish, btw, only light/nude/clear nail polish if they allow any at all at some hospitals.

 

[mehc012]

Oh come on, jonnythan was saying that your attitude of "I don't care what patients think of me" was what was "deplorable and irresponsible." It's extremely naive to think that a patient's perception of you doesn't matter at all or shouldn't be taken into consideration. Yeah it's not going to drastically affect how the patient is treated, but that's not how they see it. You wouldn't wear ripped jeans or clearly dirty clothes or tons of gaudy jewelry to the hospital. Your hair is part of your professional outfit. It needs to be well groomed and should be a natural color. Same goes for nail polish, btw, only light/nude/clear nail polish if they allow any at all at some hospitals.

I said that I didn't care what patients think of my hair - that was the attitude he found so disgusting.
And honestly, I find the sentiment an overreaction even if it were to "I don't care what my patients think of me", given the context. Calling someone disgusting is pretty big. It's far beyond 'we disagree' and getting into 'you are fundamentally a horrifying person'. It's certainly more than is called for when my only deviation from your description of the professional outfit is the 'and should be a natural color' sentence fragment.

There was also definitely an argument that having dyed hair compromised patient care (which would be why my attitude was considered so disgusting). Personally, I think this is a nigh-hysterical exaggeration - and without that bit included, I do not see what is so deplorable about the attitude "I don't care what my patient thinks of my hair". So I don't really feel that my paraphrasing was taking it out of context. At any rate, while jonnythan and I came to our accord several posts ago, my only purpose in reintroducing that particular quote was to make the context which I am arguing from clear - I am not discussing 'is it a good idea' or 'could it cost you money/acceptances', but rather 'is it fundamentally wrong' and 'does it negatively impact patient care?'

 

[el_duderino]

I said that I didn't care what patients think of my hair - that was the attitude he found so disgusting.
And honestly, I find the sentiment an overreaction even if it were to "I don't care what my patients think of me", given the context. Calling someone disgusting is pretty big. It's far beyond 'we disagree' and getting into 'you are fundamentally a horrifying person'. It's certainly more than is called for when my only deviation from your description of the professional outfit is the 'and should be a natural color' sentence fragment.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't. That's far, far removed from anything I've actually said.

 

[mehc012]

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't. That's far, far removed from anything I've actually said.

That is my paraphrasing of the discussion we just had. That is that was my impression the entire time of what you were saying to me in your initial comments. If that's not what you were intending, then perhaps that is why we never came to an agreement. However, I always took your statements as implying or even sometimes directly voicing concerns over a lack of care for patient well-being, as otherwise I do not see how disgusting or deplorable fit into anything.

 

[ridethecliche]

This is the only acceptable response to this thread:

 

[mehc012]

Wow, Tapatalk fail.

 

[Ismet]

I said that I didn't care what patients think of my hair - that was the attitude he found so disgusting.
And honestly, I find the sentiment an overreaction even if it were to "I don't care what my patients think of me", given the context. Calling someone disgusting is pretty big. It's far beyond 'we disagree' and getting into 'you are fundamentally a horrifying person'. It's certainly more than is called for when my only deviation from your description of the professional outfit is the 'and should be a natural color' sentence fragment.

There was also definitely an argument that having dyed hair compromised patient care (which would be why my attitude was considered so disgusting). Personally, I think this is a nigh-hysterical exaggeration - and without that bit included, I do not see what is so deplorable about the attitude "I don't care what my patient thinks of my hair". So I don't really feel that my paraphrasing was taking it out of context. At any rate, while jonnythan and I came to our accord several posts ago, my only purpose in reintroducing that particular quote was to make the context which I am arguing from clear - I am not discussing 'is it a good idea' or 'could it cost you money/acceptances', but rather 'is it fundamentally wrong' and 'does it negatively impact patient care?'

You are misinterpreting what he meant. He was calling out your attitude, not your hypothetical hair color.

This: "If they are narrow-minded enough to disregard information simply because I have a streak of blue in my hair, that is not my fault. " is the quote from you that sparked the whole thing. You can insert anything in the place of "a streak of blue in my hair" ("snake bite piercings," "a tattoo on my forearm," "hot pink nail polish," "stained clothes,") and the attitude would still be irresponsible and naive. I wouldn't use the word "disgusting," but it was referring to the attitude, not that people with colored hair are disgusting. Anything that you can control, you should. So if a patient disregards information because you have a blue streak in your hair or have dirty clothes or have a lot of piercings, that IS your fault, because you made the choice to go against professional norms. I'm not doubting that you care about your patients, but there is more to providing care than just giving them advice and medicine.

No, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to have colored hair, nor does it negatively impact patient care outside of what has already been discussed extensively (patient complaints, patients leaving the practice, patients disregarding what you say...which some will argue is a negative impact on patient care). But if you're so willing to follow the social norms of professionalism in terms of the clothes you wear, I guess I don't see why unnatural hair color has you so up in arms. Would you wear heavy, overdrawn eyeliner and black eyeshadow to the hospital? How about a neck tattoo? Where are we going to draw the line at which which professional norms are okay and which are not? Yeah it's unfortunate that self-expression is limited in this profession. But that's a sacrifice you make to work in a profession that serves others.

 

[mehc012]

You are misinterpreting what he meant. He was calling out your attitude, not your hypothetical hair color.

This: "If they are narrow-minded enough to disregard information simply because I have a streak of blue in my hair, that is not my fault. " is the quote from you that sparked the whole thing. You can insert anything in the place of "a streak of blue in my hair" ("snake bite piercings," "a tattoo on my forearm," "hot pink nail polish," "stained clothes,") and the attitude would still be irresponsible and naive. I wouldn't use the word "disgusting," but it was referring to the attitude, not that people with colored hair are disgusting. Anything that you can control, you should. So if a patient disregards information because you have a blue streak in your hair or have dirty clothes or have a lot of piercings, that IS your fault. I'm not doubting that you care about your patients, but there is more to providing care than just giving them advice and medicine.

No, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to have colored hair, nor does it negatively impact patient care outside of what has already been discussed extensively (patient complaints, patients leaving the practice, patients disregarding what you say...which some will argue is a negative impact on patient care). But if you're so willing to follow the social norms of professionalism in terms of the clothes you wear, I guess I don't see why unnatural hair color has you so up in arms. Would you wear heavy, overdrawn eyeliner and black eyeshadow to the hospital? How about a neck tattoo? Where are we going to draw the line at which which professional norms are okay and which are not? Yeah it's unfortunate that self-expression is limited in this profession. But that's a sacrifice you make to work in a profession that serves others.

OK, now we're quibbling over whether it is the attitude behind defying the social norm or the action itself which is being addressed - ultimately the difference between those two is negligible. I still fundamentally disagree that it would be irresponsible of me to not cater every aspect of my appearance or demeanor to suit all possible patients (well, let's be real...in order to suit the patients who happen conform to our expected societal norms, as we don't seem to care much about appeasing the admittedly minority group who would relate better to less straight-and-narrow folks) in the off chance that some of them are judgemental enough to allow their impression of my appearance to change their behavior. Call it a poor business decision, say that it will cost me money or respect from peers or jobs, etc, and those are reasonable arguments, but to state that it is irresponsible to patients? Nope. I do not hold myself responsible for their choices, but rather for giving them the information needed to make the choices for themselves. In fact, I would consider it more irresponsible to try and force the choice in one direction or the other in any way beyond providing the facts.

To me, the difference between clothing choice (and makeup, hair grooming removing/not removing a piercing, and covering/not covering a tat) vs hair color is that one reflects your preparation for the specific patient-care interaction (i.e. you get dressed in the morning knowing you are going to work) and the other is a choice which must be made jointly for both work and 'off' times. I find that distinction very important.

 

[Ismet]

To me, the difference between clothing choice (and makeup, hair grooming removing/not removing a piercing, and covering/not covering a tat) vs hair color is that one reflects your preparation for the specific patient-care interaction (i.e. you get dressed in the morning knowing you are going to work) and the other is a choice which must be made jointly for both work and 'off' times. I find that distinction very important.

If you're going to make that argument, it can be extended to what was suggested earlier in the thread of using a temporary color matching your normal hair to cover up the unnatural color for when you're in a professional setting, or hiding the color within a hairstyle. Why should people with visible tats be expected to cover them up but a person with an unnatural color can't be expected to cover that up or hide it?

 

[mehc012]

If you're going to make that argument, it can be extended to what was suggested earlier in the thread of using a temporary color matching your normal hair to cover up the unnatural color for when you're in a professional setting, or hiding the color within a hairstyle. Why should people with visible tats be expected to cover them up but a person with an unnatural color can't be expected to cover that up or hide it?

Because hair dye is not readily covered - you can't just wear a hat all the time or put on some hair-makeup. I have never seen a wholly temporary hair coloring which looks any better than a bad Halloween wig once it's in - and most temp colors are not natural shades anyway. You'd end up looking worse than the original unnatural dye.

 

[mehc012]

And again, for the record, I'm actually fine with conforming to the norms for everything - I am one of the most conservative clothing/hair people you'll meet. That doesn't mean that I am not bothered by something like hair dye being deemed irresponsible, or not being bending over backwards to appease as many conservative, traditional folks as possible being deemed reprehensible.

 

[JPA178]

At least hair dye isn't permanent. Tattoos are forever.

 

[Pierre Escargot]

Because hair dye is not readily covered - you can't just wear a hat all the time or put on some hair-makeup.

I might be jumping in quite late here, but how does the ability to cover some aspect of one's appearance readily, or the lack of that ability, confer moral significance? You said that such a distinction is very important to you. But why is that exactly? What is the morally significant difference between a physician or physician-in-training covering tattoos and a physician/physician-in-training being asked not to use unnatural-looking hair dyes?

 

[Goro]

My young colleague expertly explains here far better than I can as to why there is a reading comprehension section on the MCAT.

You are misinterpreting what he meant. He was calling out your attitude, not your hypothetical hair color.

This: "If they are narrow-minded enough to disregard information simply because I have a streak of blue in my hair, that is not my fault. " is the quote from you that sparked the whole thing. You can insert anything in the place of "a streak of blue in my hair" ("snake bite piercings," "a tattoo on my forearm," "hot pink nail polish," "stained clothes,") and the attitude would still be irresponsible and naive. I wouldn't use the word "disgusting," but it was referring to the attitude, not that people with colored hair are disgusting. Anything that you can control, you should. So if a patient disregards information because you have a blue streak in your hair or have dirty clothes or have a lot of piercings, that IS your fault, because you made the choice to go against professional norms. I'm not doubting that you care about your patients, but there is more to providing care than just giving them advice and medicine.

No, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to have colored hair, nor does it negatively impact patient care outside of what has already been discussed extensively (patient complaints, patients leaving the practice, patients disregarding what you say...which some will argue is a negative impact on patient care). But if you're so willing to follow the social norms of professionalism in terms of the clothes you wear, I guess I don't see why unnatural hair color has you so up in arms. Would you wear heavy, overdrawn eyeliner and black eyeshadow to the hospital? How about a neck tattoo? Where are we going to draw the line at which which professional norms are okay and which are not? Yeah it's unfortunate that self-expression is limited in this profession. But that's a sacrifice you make to work in a profession that serves others.

 

[Ismet]

Because hair dye is not readily covered - you can't just wear a hat all the time or put on some hair-makeup. I have never seen a wholly temporary hair coloring which looks any better than a bad Halloween wig once it's in - and most temp colors are not natural shades anyway. You'd end up looking worse than the original unnatural dye.

In the context of OP (purple tips) or the "blue streak" that you brought up, I think those are pretty easily covered up by temporary dye (unless you have blonde hair) or with certain hairstyles. If most of your hair is an unnatural color, that's another can of worms, and I would argue that that would be considered unprofessional by most people.

Something else that can't be easily covered up and is similar in analogy to the hair color - ear gauges. Even a 4g or 6g is a noticeable gauge and will leave a noticeable hole if the plug is removed. So where would you draw the line?

We can agree to disagree, as the discussion is pretty hypothetical and neither seems to be budging. I just fail to see how you can pick and choose which professional norms to follow based on whether or not they can be covered up. Visible tats are considered unprofessional by many, but since you can cover them up, it's all good! Many, many people think unnaturally colored hair is unprofessional, but since you can't easily cover that up, people should just get over it?

 

[CherryRedDracul]

At least hair dye isn't permanent. Tattoos are forever.

There is Q-switched laser treatment for the removal of tattoos. Pretty effective, but unpleasant.

 

[mehc012]

I might be jumping in quite late here, but how does the ability to cover some aspect of one's appearance readily, or the lack of that ability, confer moral significance? You said that such a distinction is very important to you. But why is that exactly? What is the morally significant difference between a physician or physician-in-training covering tattoos and a physician/physician-in-training being asked not to use unnatural-looking hair dyes?

One dictates how you dress at work only, the other dictates what you can do in your own time at home.

In the context of OP (purple tips) or the "blue streak" that you brought up, I think those are pretty easily covered up by temporary dye (unless you have blonde hair) or with certain hairstyles. If most of your hair is an unnatural color, that's another can of worms, and I would argue that that would be considered unprofessional by most people.

Something else that can't be easily covered up and is similar in analogy to the hair color - ear gauges. Even a 4g or 6g is a noticeable gauge and will leave a noticeable hole if the plug is removed. So where would you draw the line?

We can agree to disagree, as the discussion is pretty hypothetical and neither seems to be budging. I just fail to see how you can pick and choose which professional norms to follow based on whether or not they can be covered up. Visible tats are considered unprofessional by many, but since you can cover them up, it's all good! Many, many people think unnaturally colored hair is unprofessional, but since you can't easily cover that up, people should just get over it?

Again, I've never seen a truly temporary hair dye which didn't look worse than having your hair cut with a buzz saw.
As for gauges, you can a) get a flesh-toned plug or b) not worry about it. As you can probably tell from my stance on hair dye, I think people should be able to gauge their ears as well, so long as they are willing to make a clear effort to be well-groomed for professional settings.

I'm not actually drawing a line with these examples. I do have one somewhere (horn implants, forked tongue, etc), and you are right in that I need to seriously consider what my criteria are for drawing it, as right now I am unable to elucidate any concrete criteria. But thus far, with the examples we've hit, my stance on all of them is: you should be able to style yourself however you like at home, regardless of whether some sign is visible after you groom yourself for work, but you must still put in the effort when you do get ready to actually enter a professional setting. If you go for a look which is not traditionally professional, you should make a clear effort to address that when you go to work - dyed hair should be neatly groomed and styled so as to downplay the alternative look, tattoos should be covered as much as possible (though it's likely obvious that you have them anyway, the effort to conceal is not unnoticeable), piercings should be removed at work, etc.

If you do not even attempt to prepare yourself for an interaction with somebody, that can be seen as disrespectful. If you simply have more preparation required and the end result isn't quite as pretty (but you clearly took steps to appear as professional as possible given the permanent or semi-permanent things you have to work with), there is not the same vibe of apathy and disrespect. To me, it is that vibe, the 'I put in effort because I value this interaction' that professional dress is all about, and while you may not end up as uniform, you can still make your respect and effort visible.

Again, perhaps not the wisest business choice, but I don't find such choices disrespectful or irresponsible as long as you make sure you follow through with the latter half.

Finally, you're right. I am fine agreeing to disagree. I'm under no illusion that I can/could ever change your mind, nor that you will change mine. Yet I still learned from this debate (both good and bad things) and am glad to have participated. Discussions like these are not really intended for everyone to come to a consensus, but that makes them no less valuable. So, thank you, and I hope I didn't frustrate you too much (and that you don't think I am completely naive or irresponsible or antagonistic, despite our differences in opinion). To me, in most situations, freedom of choice is one of the most important values, whether the actual outcome is better or not. I firmly believe in people's right to make bad decisions for themselves - patients who ignore their docs, physicians with purple hair, New Yorkers who wish to pursue DM via large sodas, or the avg joe who rides their motorcycle without a helmet - and it bothers me when personal choices are overblown and treated as if they are someone else's issue. People don't get married in order to erode traditional values, and they don't dye their hair in order to make patients feel uncomfortable. If things weren't taken so personally by people who could be 100% unaffected if they didn't fixate on things that don't actually impact them, we could all feel a lot more free in our decisions...and I don't feel particularly obliged to verbally support that mindset, even if I feel forced to go along with it lest I risk personal and financial consequences.

*Note: this is not saying that you guys are the ones taking things personally - your responses all seem to be a reaction to those people who would take a dye job personally*

My young colleague expertly explains here far better than I can as to why there is a reading comprehension section on the MCAT.

a) I've already explained that I see little difference between the two, as the attitude and the behavior go hand-in-hand
b) Unnecessary
c) That joke really only works on those who have yet to take the MCAT.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

One of them is the preparation you put into on a daily basis for your specific job. If I am going into the office, I will wear professional clothing.
The other dictates your appearance both in and out of the office.

One is a decision you make for your patients, because it affects you only during the time you are working. The other is a decision you should make for you, because it affects you 24/7.

Actually, your professional image matters outside of work. You should trust people further into the career than you on this.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

I personally struggle to consider either of these studies a true representation of how patients react to doctors who have a more unusual look, such as dyed hair or piercings.

The main reason that I feel these studies are flawed is because they both assume that the ONLY way the patient will judge any doctor is by their appearance - that all other facets of the physicians (including experience, personality, bedside manner, type of communication, etc) will be ignored, which is very unlikely to be true, and I think it's a little ridiculous to argue that no patient would ever consider those factors when choosing a doctor.

Basically, these studies are saying if your ONLY way to choose a doctor was based on appearance, which would you choose? This is a flawed method as this is not the only way to choose your doctor. If I were one of the subjects in those studies, I probably would choose the more professionally dressed doctor, as based on the ONLY information presented (their appearance) the more professionally dressed doctor would be the logical choice. In practice, however, my favorite doctor is a male with long hair, has both his ears pierced, and wears khakis and hiking boots to appointments. Definitely NOT the professional appearance that most would expect, however I don't care what he looks like, because he has the experience, personality, bedside manner, and communication that I want.

It does not make the assumption of appearance being the only thing that matters. Minimize variables, study one concept. All things considered, does appearance matter to patients? Yes.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

If it only impacts a few people, well, my weight or my skin color or my accent probably does as much. The sleep lines under my eyes one day will do the same.

You can't mold yourself into someone who nobody ever finds objectionable.

Certainly you understand the difference between modifiable and non-modifiable variables...

 

[shenellica]

blonde streaks are fine because blonde is a natural hair color unlike purple.

What's your opinion on ethnic women (Asian/ African American/ Latino) with blond hair? Mine is not like platinum or anything. It's more like dark blond or really light brownish with highlights. It is a natural color but because of my complexion it's obviously not my real color. I've had this hair for a long time and it's long and curly like Shakira or Mariah. I won't dye it black just for interviews but I could get a really nice lace front wig to wear.

 

[Pierre Escargot]

Well, repeating the same empty statement ("one dictates what you do at work only, the other both at home and at work") doesn't really answer my question, but alright.

 

[mehc012]

Well, repeating the same empty statement ("one dictates what you do at work only, the other both at home and at work") doesn't really answer my question, but alright.

Repeat the same question, get the same answer. If you require further clarification, ask a more specific question rather than one I have already attempted to answer.

 

[caxoo]

Frankly, I don't think employers or interviewers should be able to take body modifications into consideration as long as the modification isn't offensive (swastika tattoos, for example).

However, the baby boomers are prejudiced in this manner, and they still have a disproportionate influence on American society. If you want to be successful in your interview, remove it.

When you're the big boss a few years down the road, you get to decide who you want in your company

 

[mehc012]

Actually, your professional image matters outside of work. You should trust people further into the career than you on this.

The post you quoted didn't state that appearance outside the office was meaningless, only that it should not be dictated.

In other words, I agree with you, but it's irrelevant to my main point.

 

[caxoo]

It is my job to make information and options available to my patients. If they are narrow-minded enough to disregard information simply because I have a streak of blue in my hair, that is not my fault. There are some patients who would disregard my opinion because I am young, or because I am female. Should I only send in my older, male colleagues to them in order to maximize their compliance in light of their particular social biases?

As long as we limit things such as dyed hair only to those who are young and not yet in professional situations, we continue to reinforce and propagate the idea that that is where they belong. It is a self-fulfilling cycle. Break the chain, let it become something which is not unusual, and those conceptions will begin to fade. It will stop being an issue, and we can all move on and start arguing about whatever the next decade's version of hair dye is.

While we're at it, I'd like to dress in pajamas to my interview, when will we be allowed to do that?

EDIT: oh I actually saw your later post and realized I half-agree. Oh well it is what it is

 

[mehc012]

Certainly you understand the difference between modifiable and non-modifiable variables...

I do indeed - I was using hyperbole to indicate that I feel there should be a limit on efforts to cater to the patients' idea of an acceptable physician.

After all, all of these are modifiable from the patient side: just get a different doctor

 

[Pierre Escargot]

Repeat the same question, get the same answer. If you require further clarification, ask a more specific question rather than one I have already attempted to answer.

Typically questions are repeated when the answer given is repeatedly inadequate.

 

[mehc012]

While we're at it, I'd like to dress in pajamas to my interview, when will we be allowed to do that?

Again, there is a difference in implied respect between failing to put in effort to prepare for a specific interaction and in making choices in your personal life which may have some effect on your appearance despite putting in effort.

EDIT: Saw your EDIT, thanks for letting me know I wasn't completely wasting my time!