Dare you to reply!

[KHE88]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I certainly find it disrespectful to be referred to by my first name in a group setting (e.g., tumor board) where male physician colleagues are called Dr So-and-So. Invariably the perpetrator is another woman and invariably it is a non-physician staff member (RN, RTT, admin, etc.). HOWEVER. I do not find it worth my time and mental effort to dignify it with a response. If someone wants to advertise their retrograde beliefs and petty sexism to a general audience, that's their problem. In the meantime, in professional settings I agree with others that it's best to follow the rule to call people by their professional titles unless you're specifically invited to be on a first name basis. But then I'm also getting old.

I do distinctively remember that time a dinosaur urologist in tumor board made a comment that he disagreed with recommendations to a patient from "the female radiotherapist over there" referring to a female rad onc resident.

Not saying real open prejudice doesn't occur. But calling someone by their first name isn't quite the same. And I agree, anecdotally, that it is usually not the old white male surgeon that's doing it and rather another female staff member. I've seen some nasty and petty stuff from female nurses to female residents while the female nurses treat the male residents completely opposite.

 

[PhotonBomb]

I remember when I was an intern in the ED. There was a shared line, so when you left a message for someone to call you back, it would go to the ED operator who would overhead page the whole department and tell the person what line to pick up. This was an awkward scenario. One time I paged the surgery resident on call, and left a text page "please call Dr. KHE88 at 83425 or whatever." Sure enough, 5 minutes later, there is an overhead page, "Dr. KHE88, you have a call on line 4." I picked up, explained the situation, and she came down to evaluate the patient. When she got there she immediately said, "Oh you're an intern, I thought you were an attending" and gave me a nasty look. I wasn't trying to show off, I was just trying to make sure the overhead page sounded appropriate as "Billy (not my name), you have a call on line 4" wouldn't exactly sound right coming to the entire department. Of course, she clearly thought I was a prick for wanting to be called doctor. When the reality is I couldn't care less what my peers call me.

The whole thing is stupid. It's even stupider to try and claim that all the male doctors naturally don't call female doctors "doctor" because they think they're inferior. Talk about an inferiority complex. Geez. Not everything is sexism, guys (use of "guys" there - NOT SEXIST!). Get a f'ing grip. It's like the boy who cried wolf when you call everything you don't like sexist. It undermines arguments against legitimate cases of discrimination.

My peers can call me whatever they want. Male of female. I don't care. Now staff on the otherhand, that's a different situation. Respect the hierarchy. No, it's not the miiltary but the same principle applies. You want your orders respected and not questioned. Give an inch with them you give a mile. I'm tired of every order I give my staff being questioned.

God this is such an embarassing post. I truly wonder if you are a real person or if this is a troll account.

so females being addressed at conferences by their first name more often than males is not sexist, and it's not implicit bias (this is what I would say it is, though you say that is not a real thing). So what is it? Coincidence?

 

[KHE88]

God this is such an embarassing post. I truly wonder if you are a real person or if this is a troll account.

so females being addressed at conferences by their first name more often than males is not sexist, and it's not implicit bias (this is what I would say it is, though you say that is not a real thing). So what is it? Coincidence?

I'm not embarrassed. I stand by what I wrote.

So what is it you ask? It's ridiculous is what it is.
Even if there is in fact a conscious or even subconscious effort on the part of male speakers at conferences to not use titles exactly equally between the sexes, this does not automatically and necessarily correlate to overt sexism and prejudice. Correlation does not equal causation. Calling a woman by her first name does not one sexist make. And even if it you want to twist the sitaution so it does, it is very weak. Sexism is a nasty thing and that word should be reserved for true instances of actual discrimination such as not hiring or promoting someone qualified because of sex. Or, for instance, if a woman requests to be called doctor, and a colleague refuses because he believes that title should only be reserved for males.

It is a stupendously absurd thing to get all worked up about to the point that you feel the need to publish on it and paint all male rad oncs with a broad brush as essentially just woman haters in general. It is just outrageous to suggest, without any other supporting evidence, that all these male presenters secretly have a deep-seeded disdain for females that they passive aggressively choose to omit "doctor" from their title. I suppose they are all high-fiving afterwards in their secret "boys only" club and snickering about how they really showed those wanna-be female doctors and put them in their place, right?

This social justice movement strives to create a society where we are all walking on eggshells constantly out of fear of possibly offending somebody.
I can't even keep up with what is considered offensive as the goalposts are constantly shifting and the volume of offenses is growing by a factor of 10 daily.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Yeah....... KHE gonna have to disagree with you there. You're entitled to your opinion, but ANYONE (not just white males) referencing a speaker more commonly by their first name rather than by their professional title based on whether the presenter is female or male is literally subconscious sexism. Just so happens that most of the people referencing a speaker in Rad Onc are.... at least male. You want to argue about correlation vs causation but in reality it doesn't matter. Regardless, I'll engage - usually when folks say correlation doesn't imply causation that suggests that there is a confounding variable that is actually responsible for the change. What do you think the confounding variable(s) are in this scenario besides gender?

You mention people are worked up when the only one I see using superlative adjectives in the last page of this thread is..... you. Might be time to look in the mirror. Multiple strawmen that I won't really engage with here. I think the middle ground is somewhere between you (mentality: everything is fine you are all crazy snowflakes what is the world coming to get off my lawn) and the twitterati suggesting that all old white males are the problem.

All we can do is be better as individual people. The victim mentality is, IMO, a bad look on both sides, both for those who want special treatment because they are female, and for those who say this is all non-sense and good old white boys are the victim.

 

[w00tz]

Why is it usually a female doing it to another female?

I'm not sure, but my colleagues think it's a catty power struggle type thing. Could be way off base and unique to where I did residency

 

[w00tz]

idk personally I think it's weird for residents either male or female to be called Dr. blah blah in a rad onc department which is otherwise a small department with collegiality.

but otherwise agree that the data about women being called by 'first name' at conferences etc is compelling and am glad it was published.

It's even more weird/awkward (to me at least), when a nurse will refer to me as Dr. X, then a couple minutes later refer to female resident by first name.

 

[PhotonBomb]

It's even more weird/awkward (to me at least), when a nurse will refer to me as Dr. X, then a couple minutes later refer to female resident by first name.

agreed that double standard is not right and also weird.

 

[deleted1002574]

For those in the group that benefits from the status quo, what is their motive for even admitting there are any -isms? If I was a wealthy, WASP, descendant of the landed gentry with an inheritance, what would be my interest in saying anything has to change? I’d also dismiss anything against my worldview or that would hurt my standing in society. I’d ignore things like the JCO article or that redlining ever happened or that voting rights are being jeopardized. Trust me, I get it.

Don’t fault people that feel the way they do. Walk in the shoes (Allen Edmonds) of a millionaire scion for a few days and tell me you wouldn’t finally understand where the rich elite are coming from. We all need more empathy.

 

[RickyScott]

I certainly find it disrespectful to be referred to by my first name in a group setting (e.g., tumor board) where male physician colleagues are called Dr So-and-So. Invariably the perpetrator is another woman and invariably it is a non-physician staff member (RN, RTT, admin, etc.). HOWEVER. I do not find it worth my time and mental effort to dignify it with a response. If someone wants to advertise their retrograde beliefs and petty sexism to a general audience, that's their problem. In the meantime, in professional settings I agree with others that it's best to follow the rule to call people by their professional titles unless you're specifically invited to be on a first name basis. But then I'm also getting old.

Most of the time I am called Dr.

It's even more weird/awkward (to me at least), when a nurse will refer to me as Dr. X, then a couple minutes later refer to female resident by first name.

Only time in residency I was called Dr., was when I was in trouble.

 

[Reaganite]

I'm not sure, but my colleagues think it's a catty power struggle type thing. Could be way off base and unique to where I did residency

Nah dude, you're not the only one. In my clinics and tumor boards it's female-female drama central. I have not had a single female attending my other staff (which is almost 100 percent female) didn't complain about. Like I'm trying to fight the good fight and diversify docs but my female staff is having none of it. Okay, that's just my n=1 experience here so dont shoot the messenger.

 

[medgator]

Nah dude, you're not the only one. In my clinics and tumor boards it's female-female drama central. I have not had a single female attending my other staff (which is almost 100 percent female) didn't complain about. Like I'm trying to fight the good fight and diversify docs but my female staff is having none of it. Okay, that's just my n=1 experience here so dont shoot the messenger.

Yup....

 

[RickyScott]

btw Looked at UCSF radonc dept to compare junior salary to dosimetrist, and couldn’t find a wasp male on staff?

 

[medgator]

btw Looked at UCSF radonc dept to compare junior salary to dosimetrist, and couldn’t find a wasp male on staff?

Do WASPs want to even live there? I'll admit, I'm sure the biryani/dim sum etc is amazing but not at that COL for me personally and notoriety.

 

[Reaganite]

btw Looked at UCSF radonc dept to compare junior salary to dosimetrist, and couldn’t find a wasp male on staff?

Pretty much the case at most California programs...

 

[RadOncMegatron]

What’s the point of this thread again?

To discuss things like this below. There is no easy answer, but this obviously can impact us with GYN and prostate cancer.

I have no answer to this question, but I think we will need to discuss this issue and it's nuances b/c it is coming regardless.

Should a patient be able to deny physician based on gender? race? Prb not? But at the same time it feels rationale to have some preferences for sensitive exams. Gender preference is different than racial preference, but there is some overlap.

Not sure at all any of this. Thoughts?

 

[medgator]

To discuss things like this below. There is no easy answer, but this obviously can impact us with GYN and prostate cancer.

I have no answer to this question, but I think we will need to discuss this issue and it's nuances b/c it is coming regardless.

Should a patient be able to deny physician based on gender? race? Prb not? But at the same time it feels rationale to have some preferences for sensitive exams. Gender preference is different than racial preference, but there is some overlap.

Not sure at all any of this. Thoughts?



View attachment 290339View attachment 290340

Some do that already, based on religious preference, i.e. Muslim females preferring female docs etc.

I don't think it's an unreasonable request, but likely easier to accommodate with ob gyn than rad onc given the size of our field

 

[evilbooyaa]

Guys. WTF. No ****ing politics in this forum. 45 posts deleted. Everybody participating has received a warning. Medgator gets a 2 week break from posting. KHE you were like the 4th or 5th participant so you're off the hook. @radsisrad if you post drive-by crap like that again on this forum I'm giving you a 2 week break as well.
Everyone who saw this and did not report it, shame on you.

This thread is to discuss discrimination/diversity policies, including those based on sex, race, age, whatever. NOT to discuss politics.

 

[evilbooyaa]

To discuss things like this below. There is no easy answer, but this obviously can impact us with GYN and prostate cancer.

I have no answer to this question, but I think we will need to discuss this issue and it's nuances b/c it is coming regardless.

Should a patient be able to deny physician based on gender? race? Prb not? But at the same time it feels rationale to have some preferences for sensitive exams. Gender preference is different than racial preference, but there is some overlap.

Not sure at all any of this. Thoughts?



View attachment 290339View attachment 290340

As long as this pack of women is A-OK with a male patient refusing to see a female urologist then I see no problem here. Patients are allowed to, especially in a non-emergent scenario, decide who and is not involved in their care. This to me is the same as a patient who refuses to see a black doctor, and THAT to me is OK as well because it's up to the patient. In an emergent scenario, all bets are off. Patients who want to wait to see whoever they want to see (if available) are more than welcome to. We have patients speaking foreign languages who would rather wait and see somebody who speaks the same language they are comfortable with rather than an interpreter. A-OK with me.

The last bit about incidence of sexual assault of their patients is a strawman but not at all out of line with what I've seen from twitter.

 

[PhotonBomb]

As long as this pack of women is A-OK with a male patient refusing to see a female urologist then I see no problem here. Patients are allowed to, especially in a non-emergent scenario, decide who and is not involved in their care. This to me is the same as a patient who refuses to see a black doctor, and THAT to me is OK as well because it's up to the patient. In an emergent scenario, all bets are off. Patients who want to wait to see whoever they want to see (if available) are more than welcome to. We have patients speaking foreign languages who would rather wait and see somebody who speaks the same language they are comfortable with rather than an interpreter. A-OK with me.

The last bit about incidence of sexual assault of their patients is a strawman but not at all out of line with what I've seen from twitter.

WOW okay to say no to black docs?

KHE and Evil same guy?

 

[evilbooyaa]

WOW okay to say no to black docs?

KHE and Evil same guy?

OK, answer me these serious questions. I'll have follow-ups based on your answers to the following 10 questions. I'll give you three potential answer choices: Always, Never, Sometimes. If you say 'Sometimes', please define what that means. Again, remember that this is in the setting of a non-emergent scenario, and that the patient is willing to wait or go to another facility if their 'preferred' doctor is unavailable. We'll also add in that they are nice about it, simply stating that they would prefer to not see a certain type of doctor, not that they are overtly racist/sexist/homophobic in their comments or actions.

I've provided an example (although it is not every possible situation) in parentheses if the question is unclear:

For patients:
1. Is it OK to have a preference based on gender of the doctor (Male patient prefers a male urologist or female patient prefers a female OB/GYN)?
2. Is it OK to have a preference based on the language the patient speaks (meaning a primarily Spanish speaking patient prefers a doctor who speaks fluent Spanish)?
3. Is it OK to have a preference based on the age of the doctor (Patient wants the most 'experienced' doctor AKA the one in their 60s)?
4. Is it OK to have a preference based on the sexual orientation of the doctor (Female patient does not want the female doctor who identifes as being homosexual)?
5. Is it OK to have a preference based on the height of the doctor (Short patient wants a short doctor)?
6. Is it OK to have a preference based on the weight of the doctor (Skinny patient does not want a fat doctor)?
7. Is it OK to have a preference based on where the doctor went to school (Educated patient only wants somebody who trained at Harvard)?
8. Is it OK to have a preference based on the hair color of the doctor (conservative white woman doesn't want a female doctor who happens to have dyed blue hair)?
9. Is it OK to have a preference based on the religion of the doctor (Muslim patient prefers a Muslim doctor)?
10. Is it OK to have a preference based on the race of the doctor (Black patient prefers a black doctor over a white doctor)?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Racist patients are indeed free to be racist. Such is the ethos of our country, like it or not.

People have preferences. Let them have them.

 

[PhotonBomb]

Racist patients are indeed free to be racist. Such is the ethos of our country, like it or not.

People have preferences. Let them have them.

Nah I won’t let them.

 

[deleted774703]

OK, answer me these serious questions. I'll have follow-ups based on your answers to the following 10 questions. I'll give you three potential answer choices: Always, Never, Sometimes. If you say 'Sometimes', please define what that means. Again, remember that this is in the setting of a non-emergent scenario, and that the patient is willing to wait or go to another facility if their 'preferred' doctor is unavailable. We'll also add in that they are nice about it, simply stating that they would prefer to not see a certain type of doctor, not that they are overtly racist/sexist/homophobic in their comments or actions.

I've provided an example (although it is not every possible situation) in parentheses if the question is unclear:

For patients:
1. Is it OK to have a preference based on gender of the doctor (Male patient prefers a male urologist or female patient prefers a female OB/GYN)?
2. Is it OK to have a preference based on the language the patient speaks (meaning a primarily Spanish speaking patient prefers a doctor who speaks fluent Spanish)?
3. Is it OK to have a preference based on the age of the doctor (Patient wants the most 'experienced' doctor AKA the one in their 60s)?
4. Is it OK to have a preference based on the sexual orientation of the doctor (Female patient does not want the female doctor who identifes as being homosexual)?
5. Is it OK to have a preference based on the height of the doctor (Short patient wants a short doctor)?
6. Is it OK to have a preference based on the weight of the doctor (Skinny patient does not want a fat doctor)?
7. Is it OK to have a preference based on where the doctor went to school (Educated patient only wants somebody who trained at Harvard)?
8. Is it OK to have a preference based on the hair color of the doctor (conservative white woman doesn't want a female doctor who happens to have dyed blue hair)?
9. Is it OK to have a preference based on the religion of the doctor (Muslim patient prefers a Muslim doctor)?
10. Is it OK to have a preference based on the race of the doctor (Black patient prefers a black doctor over a white doctor)?

My answer is yes bc it’s a persons health and they have a right to choose their outpatient doctor based on whatever extrinsic method they

On the other hand, a patient does not need to behave racist or sexist while trying to obtain their preference

in the inpatient setting, little more tricky as lots of other patients need acute care as well

RE religion, a doctor has every right to deny answering that question

 

[evilbooyaa]

My answer is yes bc it’s a persons health and they have a right to choose their outpatient doctor based on whatever extrinsic method they

On the other hand, a patient does not need to behave racist or sexist while trying to obtain their preference

in the inpatient setting, little more tricky as lots of other patients need acute care as well

RE religion, a doctor has every right to deny answering that question

The question was more for PhotonBomb as a way for him/her to see the pretzel logic that was being followed behind not allowing patients to make decisions of who participates in their health care.

I completely agree with you and Mandelin rain that patients should be allowed to, in a non-emergent setting (I would say being admitted inpatient does NOT count as that), have any preferences they want, for any reason, and ideally should do so in a polite manner.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I stopped caring about patient preferences. I worked in many different environments and came across all races, religions and beliefs. I realize 90% of time patients don’t care and the 10% that they did care about my sex/race/religion, I most likely didn’t want to treat them anyway!

Disclaimer: I’m a minority.

 

[radoncgrad2019]

WOW okay to say no to black docs?

KHE and Evil same guy?

to add to this point - the guy banned Medgator but let KHE slide. let that sink in.

i think we're on to something, chief!

 

[Palex80]

OK, answer me these serious questions. I'll have follow-ups based on your answers to the following 10 questions. I'll give you three potential answer choices: Always, Never, Sometimes. If you say 'Sometimes', please define what that means. Again, remember that this is in the setting of a non-emergent scenario, and that the patient is willing to wait or go to another facility if their 'preferred' doctor is unavailable. We'll also add in that they are nice about it, simply stating that they would prefer to not see a certain type of doctor, not that they are overtly racist/sexist/homophobic in their comments or actions.

I've provided an example (although it is not every possible situation) in parentheses if the question is unclear:

For patients:
1. Is it OK to have a preference based on gender of the doctor (Male patient prefers a male urologist or female patient prefers a female OB/GYN)?
2. Is it OK to have a preference based on the language the patient speaks (meaning a primarily Spanish speaking patient prefers a doctor who speaks fluent Spanish)?
3. Is it OK to have a preference based on the age of the doctor (Patient wants the most 'experienced' doctor AKA the one in their 60s)?
4. Is it OK to have a preference based on the sexual orientation of the doctor (Female patient does not want the female doctor who identifes as being homosexual)?
5. Is it OK to have a preference based on the height of the doctor (Short patient wants a short doctor)?
6. Is it OK to have a preference based on the weight of the doctor (Skinny patient does not want a fat doctor)?
7. Is it OK to have a preference based on where the doctor went to school (Educated patient only wants somebody who trained at Harvard)?
8. Is it OK to have a preference based on the hair color of the doctor (conservative white woman doesn't want a female doctor who happens to have dyed blue hair)?
9. Is it OK to have a preference based on the religion of the doctor (Muslim patient prefers a Muslim doctor)?
10. Is it OK to have a preference based on the race of the doctor (Black patient prefers a black doctor over a white doctor)?

Isn't there a difference between "prefer" and "refuse to"?

 

[KHE88]

to add to this point - the guy banned Medgator but let KHE slide. let that sink in.

i think we're on to something, chief!

*EDITED BY MODS*. I appreciate site admin's objective review of the scenario this time. In the future, I will simply hit the report button and not reply.

I am with evil on this topic, of course. Medicine is still a business, and I believe in the free market. If a patient wants to select a physician based on a sexist or racist preference, then that patient is free to seek care at an alternative facility if such a physician is not available.

Free markets force consumers and businesses to be ethical. When a consumer behaves in a racist/sexist manner, he/she runs the risk of being kicked out of that establishment and having his/her options limited. This reinfoces that sexist/racist behavior = bad. When a business behaves in a sexist/racist manner, this results in loss of business as customers go elsewhere where they aren't discriminated against. This reinforces that sexist/racist behavior = bad. See the baker vs. homosexual wedding cake case. Business reserves the right to discriminate at their own peril. Let them suffer the consequences as market responds with gay-friendly bakers. IMHO.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

*EDITED BY MODS* I appreciate site admin's objective review of the scenario this time. In the future, I will simply hit the report button and not reply.

I am with evil on this topic, of course. Medicine is still a business, and I believe in the free market. If a patient wants to select a physician based on a sexist or racist preference, then that patient is free to seek care at an alternative facility if such a physician is not available.

Free markets force consumers and businesses to be ethical. When a consumer behaves in a racist/sexist manner, he/she runs the risk of being kicked out of that establishment and having his/her options limited. This reinfoces that sexist/racist behavior = bad. When a business behaves in a sexist/racist manner, this results in loss of business as customers go elsewhere where they aren't discriminated against. This reinforces that sexist/racist behavior = bad. See the baker vs. homosexual wedding cake case. Business reserves the right to discriminate at their own peril. Let them suffer the consequences as market responds with gay-friendly bakers. IMHO.

I agree with this (except that I am on the side of religious liberty) but either way we both agree the market should play itself out on many issues. Deep down though, I feel healthcare is different. Can't quite express it in words, but I think we all know something is different about a patient coming to a physician.

Maybe I am too idealistic in regards to the patient-physician relationship. I think it is sacred, but alas, business and politics is messing it up. I think @RadOncDoc21 made a point that 90% of people know how to navigate all this. If you are a male doctor and their is a woman who has experience sexual trauma who needs a sensitive exam 99.9% will know that on a non-emergent basis to go ahead and have female doctor take care of the issue all else being equal. If there is a patient who speaks a foreign language, duh, they prefer someone who speaks their language.

It's when bureaucrats/so-called oncology leaders make rules for human interactions that people must follow it gets difficult. 90% (99%?) of us can do it no problem without bureaucratic rules telling us how to treat people with respect and what ideals to hold. Really those 10% (1%) of people messing things up. I will also add that I think it is infuriating we are "gifting" people JCO & NEJM level articles to put on their CV for this stuff. This will help nobody.

 

[baculum1]

Hate crimes are at a 16th year record. Read that again, 16th year record. There has not been a more dangerous time in a while to be a hispanic/black or member of other disadvantaged ethnic minorities (midwest woman just ran over a child for looking “mexican”) Or a member of sexual orientation minorities (black trans women being executed murdered all over). things are so dangerous now that anybody from these groups should be packing heat to protect themselves and families.

Some of you guys need to get your head out of your sandy ass. Clearly not a member of any of these disadvantaged groups. And your answer is “let the market decide”. Yeah that’s some great way to think. Statements have been made that make me question people’s ability to lead moving forward. You have no historical perspective and are clearly ignorant. This thread is an absolute dumpster fire and has run its course.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Hate crimes are at a 16th year record. Read that again, 16th year record. There has not been a more dangerous time in a while to be a hispanic/black or member of other disadvantaged ethnic minorities (midwest woman just ran over a child for looking “mexican”) Or a member of sexual orientation minorities (black trans women being executed murdered all over). things are so dangerous now that anybody from these groups should be packing heat to protect themselves and families.

Some of you guys need to get your head out of your sandy ass. Clearly not a member of any of these disadvantaged groups. And your answer is “let the market decide”. Yeah that’s some great way to think. Statements have been made that make me question people’s ability to lead moving forward. You have no historical perspective and are clearly ignorant. This thread is an absolute dumper fire and has run its course.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

@baculum1

If this is reply is pointed to me than let me respond. I didn't say there were no problems. You are right to point out problems. I am making the point that the solutions offered by our elites do not help and will cause more problems.

You are right, I am not saying the market will correct the problems you mentioned. I am just saying that it is the least worst. I also noted that in regards to healthcare and the market "Deep down though, I feel healthcare is different."

Market = Let people do what they want > Anything the Bureaucrats have decided

Neither will likely fix the problem. Did you hear that? Don't put words and ill intentions in anyones mouth.

We should speak to each other and try to fix this issues (I don't really know if they are in fact "fixable.).

Not talking about these issues will make the dumpster fire worse. I don't have the answers, but I'll be damned if I let you cuss me out and pretend I am part of this problem.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Isn't there a difference between "prefer" and "refuse to"?

In a non-emergent medical scenario, I personally don't think so, and think that it's a spectrum. If somebody prefers X strongly enough they will refuse Y. However, feel free to replace all the 'preferences' to 'refuses to' and I'm happy to continue the discussion.

I will say that the constant appeals to emotion, transitioning to off-topic discussion, and such from people who disagree with me who are unwilling to answer the 10 questions I've posed is telling.

I still disagree with KHE quite vehemently about certain things (see earlier on this page) so people conflating us to be of similar mindset are somewhat talking out of their ass.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Hate crimes are at a 16th year record. Read that again, 16th year record. There has not been a more dangerous time in a while to be a hispanic/black or member of other disadvantaged ethnic minorities (midwest woman just ran over a child for looking “mexican”) Or a member of sexual orientation minorities (black trans women being executed murdered all over). things are so dangerous now that anybody from these groups should be packing heat to protect themselves and families.

Some of you guys need to get your head out of your sandy ass. Clearly not a member of any of these disadvantaged groups. And your answer is “let the market decide”. Yeah that’s some great way to think. Statements have been made that make me question people’s ability to lead moving forward. You have no historical perspective and are clearly ignorant. This thread is an absolute dumpster fire and has run its course.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

What does any of this (especially the first paragraph) have to do at all with the topic of discussion in regards to discrimination in the physician workplace? Yes the US still has rampant racism/sexism and it is a problem. Are we on the same page now?

We are talking about PATIENT preferences.

To clarify, I am not at all in favor of PHYSICIANS being able to turn down a patient for any of those 10 reasons I noted above. There is a big difference between what a patient wants and what a physician wants. The bolded is so extremist of an outlook that I truly think future reasonable discourse with you will be like banging my head against a wall.

to add to this point - the guy banned Medgator but let KHE slide. let that sink in.

i think we're on to something, chief!

Bringing something that has zero relation to the topic at hand. Warned. BTW it's not a perm ban, he'll be back.

 

[PhotonBomb]

If the mods still had their fast ball This thread would have been shut down a WHILE ago. It doesn’t nothing but make This forum look terrible. UGH!

 

[evilbooyaa]

If you are not interested in participating in the thread, you are welcome to ignore the thread. I'm posting this for like the second or third time in this thread.

 

[Palex80]

In a non-emergent medical scenario, I personally don't think so, and think that it's a spectrum. If somebody prefers X strongly enough they will refuse Y. However, feel free to replace all the 'preferences' to 'refuses to' and I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Well in that case:

OK, answer me these serious questions. I'll have follow-ups based on your answers to the following 10 questions. I'll give you three potential answer choices: Always, Never, Sometimes. If you say 'Sometimes', please define what that means. Again, remember that this is in the setting of a non-emergent scenario, and that the patient is willing to wait or go to another facility if their 'preferred' doctor is unavailable. We'll also add in that they are nice about it, simply stating that they would prefer to not see a certain type of doctor, not that they are overtly racist/sexist/homophobic in their comments or actions.

I've provided an example (although it is not every possible situation) in parentheses if the question is unclear:

For patients:
1. Is it OK to have a preference based on gender of the doctor (Male patient prefers a male urologist or female patient prefers a female OB/GYN)?
2. Is it OK to have a preference based on the language the patient speaks (meaning a primarily Spanish speaking patient prefers a doctor who speaks fluent Spanish)?
3. Is it OK to have a preference based on the age of the doctor (Patient wants the most 'experienced' doctor AKA the one in their 60s)?
4. Is it OK to have a preference based on the sexual orientation of the doctor (Female patient does not want the female doctor who identifes as being homosexual)?
5. Is it OK to have a preference based on the height of the doctor (Short patient wants a short doctor)?
6. Is it OK to have a preference based on the weight of the doctor (Skinny patient does not want a fat doctor)?
7. Is it OK to have a preference based on where the doctor went to school (Educated patient only wants somebody who trained at Harvard)?
8. Is it OK to have a preference based on the hair color of the doctor (conservative white woman doesn't want a female doctor who happens to have dyed blue hair)?
9. Is it OK to have a preference based on the religion of the doctor (Muslim patient prefers a Muslim doctor)?
10. Is it OK to have a preference based on the race of the doctor (Black patient prefers a black doctor over a white doctor)?

Ok...

1. If the patient declares religious issues or there is underlying psychological / traumatic issue, yes. So "Sometimes", I can probably count the cases per year with one hand.
2. Never. There are translators which can cover this issue.
3. Never. Irrelevant.
4. Never. Irrelevant.
5. Never. Irrelevant. (I would probably ask for a psychiatrist to have a talk with that particular patient though..)
6. Same as 5.
7. Never.
8. Same as 5.
9. Never.
10. Never.

I recall a prostate cancer patient who refused to have a DRE done on him by a doctor of a certain ethnicity ("I am not letting a X finger up my butt").
Provisions were made.

Welcome to Europe!

 

[SneakyBooger]

<iframe src="" width="640" height="640" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; fullscreen" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p><a href="">BBC&#039;s: So Woke</a> from <a href="Singaplex">Singaplex</a> on <a href="Vimeo: Watch, upload, and share HD and 4K videos with no ads">Vimeo</a>.</p>

 

[deleted480308]

Hate crimes are at a 16th year record. Read that again, 16th year record. There has not been a more dangerous time in a while to be a hispanic/black or member of other disadvantaged ethnic minorities (midwest woman just ran over a child for looking “mexican”) Or a member of sexual orientation minorities (black trans women being executed murdered all over). things are so dangerous now that anybody from these groups should be packing heat to protect themselves and families.

Some of you guys need to get your head out of your sandy ass. Clearly not a member of any of these disadvantaged groups. And your answer is “let the market decide”. Yeah that’s some great way to think. Statements have been made that make me question people’s ability to lead moving forward. You have no historical perspective and are clearly ignorant. This thread is an absolute dumpster fire and has run its course.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

Rad onc doctors aren’t running around murdering people over their demogrAphics, so those issues should be addressed by arresting criminals not by changing anything in rad onc

 

[evilbooyaa]

Well in that case:



Ok...

1. If the patient declares religious issues or there is underlying psychological / traumatic issue, yes. So "Sometimes", I can probably count the cases per year with one hand.
2. Never. There are translators which can cover this issue.
3. Never. Irrelevant.
4. Never. Irrelevant.
5. Never. Irrelevant. (I would probably ask for a psychiatrist to have a talk with that particular patient though..)
6. Same as 5.
7. Never.
8. Same as 5.
9. Never.
10. Never.

I recall a prostate cancer patient who refused to have a DRE done on him by a doctor of a certain ethnicity ("I am not letting a X finger up my butt").
Provisions were made.

Welcome to Europe!

View attachment 290483

Let's start off with what I've bolded above - what did 'provisions were made' mean? Please choose between option 1 or 2. If it is somehow neither 1 or 2, feel free to explain what happened.
1. Was the patient treated by a different member of the staff after making that statement?
OR, 2. Was the patient refused all treatment for his racist decision by the treating facility because he's a racist, and in your opinion (based on the answer to question 10), patients can't refuse treatment based on the race of the doctor?

 

[xrthopeful]

evilbooya....what are you doing. don't die on this hill

you hate to see it.

 

[Palex80]

Let's start off with what I've bolded above - what did 'provisions were made' mean? Please choose between option 1 or 2. If it is somehow neither 1 or 2, feel free to explain what happened.
1. Was the patient treated by a different member of the staff after making that statement?
OR, 2. Was the patient refused all treatment for his racist decision by the treating facility because he's a racist, and in your opinion (based on the answer to question 10), patients can't refuse treatment based on the race of the doctor?

Neither.
The patient was informed that a DRE was a part of his diagnostic workup and if he refused to have it, we would have to treat him with whatever information we had. He still refused having it and we treated him with what was recorded in the file by his urologist. He did not ask for a finger of another ethnicity and we did not propose it to him. For us, it was not an option.

I strongly believe that patients should not be granted the "liberty" to choose the race of the doctor who treats them. By agreeing to that I think that we are ourselves accepting that there are different "categories" of doctors solely based on race.
There are categories of doctors based on skills. Period. Agreeing to anything else beyond that is racist by its core definition. But that's just my opinion.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Neither.
The patient was informed that a DRE was a part of his diagnostic workup and if he refused to have it, we would have to treat him with whatever information we had. He still refused having it and we treated him with what was recorded in the file by his urologist. He did not ask for a finger of another ethnicity and we did not propose it to him. For us, it was not an option.

I strongly believe that patients should not be granted the "liberty" to choose the race of the doctor who treats them. By agreeing to that I think that we are ourselves accepting that there are different "categories" of doctors solely based on race.
There are categories of doctors based on skills. Period. Agreeing to anything else beyond that is racist by its core definition. But that's just my opinion.

But he WAS okay to have radiation treatment by the doctor of that ethnicity? Just didn't want the exam? That's an inconsistent bit of racism. What if he had said "I'm not letting that doctor of X ethnicity manage my treatment", what would your (or your department's) response have been?

 

[baculum1]

Rad onc doctors aren’t running around murdering people over their demogrAphics, so those issues should be addressed by arresting criminals not by changing anything in rad onc

So radiation oncology exists in a vacuum with no connection or obligation to society and we are powerless to do anything about it or should do nothing about it in your view if these dark aspects of society enter our field? So you would not have your colleague’s back if a patient said they did not want to be treated by that ________ (racism) and would just walk in the room as a WASP and do the DRE yourself replacing your colleague because “liberty”? That logic is frustrating and makes zero sense to me.

Society looks to us for good example and to lead. We cannot avoid the uncomfortable to do what is convenient. We have to stand up for what is right and racism is not ok in my book. That patient is going somewhere else and they damn well will not have the option to be seen by another ethnicity. What a terrible slippery slope

 

[PhotonBomb]

If a patient is rude to my support staff I also read them the riot act.

 

[Palex80]

But he WAS okay to have radiation treatment by the doctor of that ethnicity? Just didn't want the exam? That's an inconsistent bit of racism. What if he had said "I'm not letting that doctor of X ethnicity manage my treatment", what would your (or your department's) response have been?

To show him the exit.

What would happen in Starbucks if you didn't want your coffee to be brewed by a Chinese barista? Would they organize a non-Chinese barista for you?

 

[evilbooyaa]

To show him the exit.

What would happen in Starbucks if you didn't want your coffee to be brewed by a Chinese barista? Would they organize a non-Chinese barista for you?

OK, fair enough.

Let's go back a few steps. When you initially answered the questions you said if there was religious issues or psychological trauma that allowed refusals to be made based on gender (only gender). I won't get into religious issues, but let's talk about psychological trauma.

Black female has a history of being mugged/robbed (NOT sexually assaulted) by a white couple (male and female) and as a direct result, is deeply distrustful of all white people, including physicians. She gets PTSD because of the event. She doesn't like to talk about it because it sparks her memory and reactivates her anxiety. She goes for a routine medical visit with a new office. She knows they have non-white doctors from looking at the website. She is seen by a white female physician, and gently requests to be seen and followed by somebody non-white. Let's say scenario A) is that the patient is unwilling to provide a reason due to concerns of re-activating her PTSD or scenario B) that the patient reluctantly provides the reason why she wants somebody non-white.
For each scenario, do you:
1. Tell the patient racism is not allowed here and say if she does not want the current doctor she can leave the office entierly?
or 2. Allow her to see any of the non-white physicians in the office?

 

[Palex80]

OK, fair enough.

Let's go back a few steps. When you initially answered the questions you said if there was religious issues or psychological trauma that allowed refusals to be made based on gender (only gender). I won't get into religious issues, but let's talk about psychological trauma.

Black female has a history of being mugged/robbed (NOT sexually assaulted) by a white couple (male and female) and as a direct result, is deeply distrustful of all white people, including physicians. She gets PTSD because of the event. She doesn't like to talk about it because it sparks her memory and reactivates her anxiety. She goes for a routine medical visit with a new office. She knows they have non-white doctors from looking at the website. She is seen by a white female physician, and gently requests to be seen and followed by somebody non-white. Let's say scenario A) is that the patient is unwilling to provide a reason due to concerns of re-activating her PTSD or scenario B) that the patient reluctantly provides the reason why she wants somebody non-white.
For each scenario, do you:
1. Tell the patient racism is not allowed here and say if she does not want the current doctor she can leave the office entierly?
or 2. Allow her to see any of the non-white physicians in the office?

Since I wouldn't know anything about her PTSD, I would probably simply ask her what the problem is.

I do think, I would be able to grasp if her problem with seeing a white person is racism or something else, judging by her reply.
I probably think that she would talk about her PTSD if she was confronted with having to leave the office. At that point, the PTSD justifies treatment by a doctor of different race.

But it's a difficult situation and in hindsight I may indeed come into the situation of wrongly accusing her of racism.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Since I wouldn't know anything about her PTSD, I would probably simply ask her what the problem is.

I do think, I would be able to grasp if her problem with seeing a white person is racism or something else, judging by her reply.
I probably think that she would talk about her PTSD if she was confronted with having to leave the office. At that point, the PTSD justifies treatment by a doctor of different race.

But it's a difficult situation and in hindsight I may indeed come into the situation of wrongly accusing her of racism.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for playing along. I just wanted to see if the psychological trauma angle worked in other situations in your view. Your logic train checks out, although hopefully this encourages you (and others who may have the same thought processes) to 'never say never' when it comes to situations like these. I'll concede that these are exhibitively rare scenarios.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I just don’t get how people think you can force a racist patient to receive health care from a doctor they are bigoted against. Or why you’d want to. Let them go wherever they want. The less racists in my clinic, the better.

 

[PhotonBomb]

I just don’t get how people think you can force a racist patient to receive health care from a doctor they are bigoted against. Or why you’d want to. Let them go wherever they want. The less racists in my clinic, the better.

Yes they can go elsewhere.