Patients avoiding gay doctors

[savvysearch]

A patient has the right to discriminate a doctor for their race, height, weight, looks, or even fashion sense. This includes sexuality. It doesn't matter how idiotic are their prejudices. Everyone should choose a doctor they are most comfortable with.

At the same time, patient shouldn't be allowed to know the sexual orientation of the doctors on staff. In other words, medical groups shouldn't be complicit in a patient's prejudicial doctor search.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Autarkeia]

A patient has the right to discriminate a doctor for their race, height, weight, looks, or even fashion sense. This includes sexuality. It doesn't matter how idiotic are their prejudices. Everyone should choose a doctor they are most comfortable with.

At the same time, patient shouldn't be allowed to know the sexual orientation of the doctors on staff. In other words, medical groups shouldn't be complicit in a patient's prejudicial doctor search.

Right on. A consumer has the right to discriminate on the basis of whatever qualities they choose. When you're willing to force a woman to see a male gyn despite her strong desire for a female doctor, then maybe this is worth talking about. Until then, stop mentally treating homosexual doctors as a special class that deserve special accommodation because it's the cause of the week.

 

[Autarkeia]

Lol. OR maybe he/she hasn't taken bio yet to learn how genes in the mother could actually affect the fetus which could possibly set up the identical twins slightly differently or cause an immune response in one.

And maybe you haven't taken psych and counseling yet to learn that bonding issues are closlely related to sexuality and parental care can determine sexual-orientation. When you spend time knee-cap to knee-cap with men whose lives are being destroyed by behavior and feelings they don't want, then make sweeping statements. Until then, maybe you should be quiet.

 

[NickNaylor]

A patient has the right to discriminate a doctor for their race, height, weight, looks, or even fashion sense. This includes sexuality. It doesn't matter how idiotic are their prejudices. Everyone should choose a doctor they are most comfortable with.

At the same time, patient shouldn't be allowed to know the sexual orientation of the doctors on staff. In other words, medical groups shouldn't be complicit in a patient's prejudicial doctor search.

Exactly. Who cares if patients discriminate? That's what they're supposed to do so that they get a physician they're comfortable with. I don't see anything wrong with not seeing a particular doctor for any reason.

 

[gmcguitar4]

Exactly. Who cares if patients discriminate? That's what they're supposed to do so that they get a physician they're comfortable with. I don't see anything wrong with not seeing a particular doctor for any reason.

Agreed.

 

[eli20]

A patient has the right to discriminate a doctor for their race, height, weight, looks, or even fashion sense. This includes sexuality. It doesn't matter how idiotic are their prejudices. Everyone should choose a doctor they are most comfortable with.

At the same time, patient shouldn't be allowed to know the sexual orientation of the doctors on staff. In other words, medical groups shouldn't be complicit in a patient's prejudicial doctor search.

Do I have the same choice not to treat bigoted idiots?

 

[Autarkeia]

Do I have the same choice not to treat bigoted idiots?

Nope. Federal law prohibits such discrimination by service providers. Service providers must offer equal services to all, consumers can select freely. Welcome to the US.

 

[Slack3r]

Exactly. Who cares if patients discriminate? That's what they're supposed to do so that they get a physician they're comfortable with. I don't see anything wrong with not seeing a particular doctor for any reason.

I think most people are taking issue with the presumed fact that if a patient had refused to see, say, a black doctor, it'd be a huge ****ing deal. But refusing to see a gay doctor affords you some moral leg to stand on (hint: it doesn't).

If you wanna be a bigot, by all means, bigot-it up. But don't pretend like you're in the right in doing so.

 

[gmcguitar4]

Do I have the same choice not to treat bigoted idiots?

Well you don't have to sink to their level. Don't hate ignorance, just pity it.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think most people are taking issue with the presumed fact that if a patient had refused to see, say, a black doctor, it'd be a huge ****ing deal. But refusing to see a gay doctor affords you some moral leg to stand on (hint: it doesn't).

If you wanna be a bigot, by all means, bigot-it up. But don't pretend like you're in the right in doing so.

But is there something wrong with not seeing a black doctor if you're not black? The entire URM program is founded on the premise that this does occur (i.e., minorities don't want to see white doctors), so does the URM program support a moral wrong?

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to go to a doctor of a particular sex, gender, etc.. I certainly don't think it makes you a bigot.

 

[theseeker4]

But is there something wrong with not seeing a black doctor if you're not black? The entire URM program is founded on the premise that this does occur (i.e., minorities don't want to see white doctors), so does the URM program support a moral wrong?

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to go to a doctor of a particular sex, gender, etc.. I certainly don't think it makes you a bigot.

Meh, there is a difference, however, between choosing your doctor based on values that can be called bigoted, and making a hospital, as described in an earlier post, prohibit homosexual doctors from your child's room in every case other than an emergency. Big difference between a patient or a patient's parents picking a doctor in part because he or she is not homosexual, and making a homosexual resident wait outside the room during rounds on admitted peds patients, which is implied by that earlier (first?) post.

 

[NickNaylor]

Meh, there is a difference, however, between choosing your doctor based on values that can be called bigoted, and making a hospital, as described in an earlier post, prohibit homosexual doctors from your child's room in every case other than an emergency. Big difference between a patient or a patient's parents picking a doctor in part because he or she is not homosexual, and making a homosexual resident wait outside the room during rounds on admitted peds patients, which is implied by that earlier (first?) post.

I agree entirely with the bolded statements, but that wasn't the scenario I was talking about or referring to. There seem to be a few posters that suggest patients discriminating against physicians is fundamentally wrong, and I take issue with that. Institutionalized discrimination (what you're referring to) is, I agree, an entirely different animal.

 

[theseeker4]

I agree entirely with the bolded statements, but that wasn't the scenario I was talking about or referring to. There seem to be a few posters that suggest patients discriminating against physicians is fundamentally wrong, and I take issue with that. Institutionalized discrimination (what you're referring to) is, I agree, an entirely different animal.

OK, I was referring to the quote provided in the OP, which started the thread. I would agree that patients should be able to choose their doctors based on whatever criteria they want, including criteria that most of us would find completely reprehensible.

 

[Autarkeia]

Well you don't have to sink to their level. Don't hate ignorance, just pity it.

Again, right on. Matching intolerance with intolerance is bizarre. Like or not, this woman is scared of homosexuality. Her fear, though baseless, is just as real as any other fear and should be respected as such. The patient-physician relationship is entirely based on trust, and fear undermines that trust. She should be encouraged to seek a doctor she trusts; the examination room is not the place to "correct" perspectives. The place to "correct" perspectives is in the wider culture, the culture that gave her the fear in the first place. Now, if you think she should be denied medical care because of fear that comes from her acculturation, so be it, but I am glad there are ethics committees that will force compassion when it is lacking in the doctor.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Do I have the same choice not to treat bigoted idiots?

If you are a pediatrician in nyc you just might someday (antivax policies)

 

[ksmajmudar]

let me spice it up

jets>>>pats

+1000

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

Again, right on. Matching intolerance with intolerance is bizarre. Like or not, this woman is scared of homosexuality. Her fear, though baseless, is just as real as any other fear and should be respected as such. The patient-physician relationship is entirely based on trust, and fear undermines that trust. She should be encouraged to seek a doctor she trusts; the examination room is not the place to "correct" perspectives. The place to "correct" perspectives is in the wider culture, the culture that gave her the fear in the first place. Now, if you think she should be denied medical care because of fear that comes from her acculturation, so be it, but I am glad there are ethics committees that will force compassion when it is lacking in the doctor.

So what do you say to a situation in which a child is admitted (non-acute so time is not of the essence and therefore when the OP's quote suggests discriminating), the doctor that is assigned to the child is gay and the parents request a non-gay doctor. My thought is that the hospital's response should be "I'm sorry but we cannot accommodate your request, due to hospital policies this doctor has been assigned to your case and also due to hospital policy we do not enable discriminatory practices. You are, however, free to find a hospital or doctor in a different location that is willing to accommodate you."?

I've also got to admit that I think the idea of having URMs treat URMs because they are more comfortable is a little BS... it's only adding to the fire by saying we are different so find someone with your same differences. Theoretically, all physicians should be given cultural competency training. I think the desire on behalf of the URM is based in a lack of desire to get out of their comfort zone. I will say that I was interested in finding a gay primary care doc to make things easier but then I found my GP and he is straight and amazing. He knows all of the right things to ask and it made me see that you don't have to be gay to treat a gay, you just have to be willing to learn what is necessary and what is different. I think the same thing goes with say asians treating asians or blacks treating blacks... are they the only ones capable? I just feel like the medical institution needs to push people forward to accepted differences and get out of their comfort zone (just like the government pushed people forward to accept abolition of slavery and did the same with civil rights, after all it's rarely the majority that is progressive).

EDIT: I forgot to say that this whole idea of like treating like goes against what I viewed as a fundamental principal of "everyone is equal." If everyone is equal then why are only some able to treat some and others not? If we are equal then let us actually be treated as if there aren't differences.

Also, don't take this as me being against the idea that we need to focus on admitting URMs. I still think that because URMs are present in medicine less than in the general public that this is indicative of inequality in opportunities. I just don't think it should be so like can treat like.

 

[link2swim06]

Nope. Federal law prohibits such discrimination by service providers. Service providers must offer equal services to all, consumers can select freely. Welcome to the US.

Except its easy to refer to someone else for other reasons and accomplish the same goal, if you didn't want to treat X population.

 

[link2swim06]

So what do you say to a situation in which a child is admitted (non-acute so time is not of the essence and therefore when the OP's quote suggests discriminating), the doctor that is assigned to the child is gay and the parents request a non-gay doctor. My thought is that the hospital's response should be "I'm sorry but we cannot accommodate your request, due to hospital policies this doctor has been assigned to your case and also due to hospital policy we do not enable discriminatory practices. You are, however, free to find a hospital or doctor in a different location that is willing to accommodate you."?

I've also got to admit that I think the idea of having URMs treat URMs because they are more comfortable is a little BS... it's only adding to the fire by saying we are different so find someone with your same differences. Theoretically, all physicians should be given cultural competency training. I think the desire on behalf of the URM is based in a lack of desire to get out of their comfort zone. I will say that I was interested in finding a gay primary care doc to make things easier but then I found my GP and he is straight and amazing. He knows all of the right things to ask and it made me see that you don't have to be gay to treat a gay, you just have to be willing to learn what is necessary and what is different. I think the same thing goes with say asians treating asians or blacks treating blacks... are they the only ones capable? I just feel like the medical institution needs to push people forward to accepted differences and get out of their comfort zone (just like the government pushed people forward to accept abolition of slavery and did the same with civil rights, after all it's rarely the majority that is progressive).

EDIT: I forgot to say that this whole idea of like treating like goes against what I viewed as a fundamental principal of "everyone is equal." If everyone is equal then why are only some able to treat some and others not? If we are equal then let us actually be treated as if there aren't differences.

Also, don't take this as me being against the idea that we need to focus on admitting URMs. I still think that because URMs are present in medicine less than in the general public that this is indicative of inequality in opportunities. I just don't think it should be so like can treat like.

Your missing the point...nobody is saying preemptively match URMs with URMs. The point is patients are free to request whom they want and their request should be honored.

 

[Suncrusher]

I agree entirely with the bolded statements, but that wasn't the scenario I was talking about or referring to. There seem to be a few posters that suggest patients discriminating against physicians is fundamentally wrong, and I take issue with that. Institutionalized discrimination (what you're referring to) is, I agree, an entirely different animal.

Fair enough, but what started this entire thread was media insidiously stirring up people to avoid letting their children be treated by gay doctors, which is getting away from a personal discriminatory preference and towards a larger, discriminatory movement. Whether or not it is wrong, it is at least remarkable. Afaik there are no leaders in the black community who are stirring up people as a group to avoid white doctors. Maybe there is no difference in practice between all of those people making the choice individually or being stirred up as a group, but it feels different.

 

[FTFY]

This thread is by far one of the most interesting and humorous parts of my day. It was very refreshing to see a coherent conversation online regarding this topic, especially after reading the comments on Medscape about this article and implications it has for the medical field. Talk about trainwreck...

 

[45408]

A patient has the right to discriminate a doctor for their race, height, weight, looks, or even fashion sense. This includes sexuality. It doesn't matter how idiotic are their prejudices. Everyone should choose a doctor they are most comfortable with.

Agreed. In this situation, it's about what's best for the patient. If a patient is uncomfortable and feels awkward around their physician, their care will be suboptimal no matter how good the physician is.

At the same time, patient shouldn't be allowed to know the sexual orientation of the doctors on staff. In other words, medical groups shouldn't be complicit in a patient's prejudicial doctor search.

I agree with your principle in this particular situation, but we do allow other kinds of prejudice (e.g., picking a male or female physician).

 

[45408]

Do I have the same choice not to treat bigoted idiots?

Yes.

Nope. Federal law prohibits such discrimination by service providers. Service providers must offer equal services to all, consumers can select freely. Welcome to the US.

Federal law prohibits discrimination against protected classes, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, etc. It also requires you to treat everyone in a medical emergency (if you're bound by EMTALA). If you "fired" a patient from your outpatient clinic for being discriminatory against your office staff, I don't think they have any recourse.

 

[NickNaylor]

Fair enough, but what started this entire thread was media insidiously stirring up people to avoid letting their children be treated by gay doctors, which is getting away from a personal discriminatory preference and towards a larger, discriminatory movement. Whether or not it is wrong, it is at least remarkable. Afaik there are no leaders in the black community who are stirring up people as a group to avoid white doctors. Maybe there is no difference in practice between all of those people making the choice individually or being stirred up as a group, but it feels different.

I definitely agree that this is taking it to a new level of stupidity, but I think the patient's individual right to choose a doctor based on whatever criteria they want is absolutely critical.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

re: discussion about providers discriminating, you are not required to provide elective care to anyone as long as you give them a list of referrals.

If you are a pediatrician in nyc you just might someday (antivax policies)

expand?

 

[LizzyM]

Agree with Nick Naylor but the story linked by the OP refers to what parents should do when a child is admitted to the hospital. Let's say it is a scheduled surgery that will require at least an overnight stay. The hospital has some employees who display a rainbow pin attached to the ID badge. (Have you ever seen all the decorative stuff people who work with pediatric patients attach to their badges and stethoscopes? It is crowded and colorful.) The parent comes in to the admitting office and says, "I don't want any of those people with the rainbow badges coming in contact with my kid, do we understand each other?"

Is it even possible to exclude every attending, resident, nurse, aide, therapist, housekeeper, dietitian, and volunteer who has a particular image displayed on their badge?

A family can certainly choose the attending physician who will perform the surgery but I don't see how they can dictate who will provide overnight coverage when an IV line kinks or there are monsters under the bed.

 

[Suncrusher]

I'm not saying patients should be forced to be treated by a doctor they don't want due to personal comfort/choice/preference/discrimination. I do think that this woman's encouragement of a mass movement of choice/preference/discrimination is an unsettling development and shouldn't be ignored because of a side argument

 

[eli20]

I'm mostly playing devils advocate - but I agree, I'm ok with patients being able to choose their doctor based on any criteria as long as a physician also has the ability to choose not to treat a patient (obviously with appropriate notice/recommendations) and as long as that criteria doesn't unreasonably encroach upon physician privacy.

As for refusing to treat a patient who hates you/is scared of you, I hardly think this is showing a lack of compassion. If a patient is so fundamentally opposed to a doctor, that doctor is most likely not the best person to provide care anyways.

 

[gettheleadout]

I think Slack3r feels the same way I do, in that yes, patients have the right to choose their physicians based on anything they want and we should defend and respect that right, but that doesn't mean they're exempt from their motives for discrimination being criticized as prejudiced and/or ignorant.

 

[KPride]

I'm angry because you can't equate Black people to homosexuals. You are a racist bigot.

Race is something one can't hide, and can not control on any level. Identical twins are never different races.

Homosexuality is not the same as race. There are no genes for homosexuality. Identical twins are not always the same sexual orientation. That, is a proven fact.


So, yes, I'm mad because you are a racist bigot.

I don't like racism, or homophobia for that matter. But one can not equate the two.

Hate is hate. No matter how you try to twist it. This is coming from the foreign, lesbian, black woman. And PROUD of all of it.
The analogy used was damn near perfect.

 

[alexandertg6]

Imo rainbow pins should be left out of the office for the same reason "I <3 women" pins should be left at home. Its simply unprofessional to broadcast sexual orientation info in the office no matter what your sexual orientation is. I wouldnt be seen by a Dr. wearing either pin because I want my physician to be a professional, not an activist while I am being examined .

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Imo rainbow pins should be left out of the office for the same reason "I <3 women" pins should be left at home. Its simply unprofessional to broadcast sexual orientation info in the office no matter what your sexual orientation is. I wouldnt be seen by a Dr. wearing either pin because I want my physician to be a professional, not an activist while I am being examined .

It's comforting to identify with your doctor, like it was mentioned being gay is not just simply same sex attractions, but also common experiences and view points. My family and I have a pretty good relationship with our primary care physician and can identify with him on many levels, including the fact that we all hail from similar backgrounds.

Furthermore, a rainbow pin is a symbol, which many of my friends who support gay marriage wear them. It makes LGBT persons feel more comfortable and not have to fear of being judged or discriminated. Every patient deserves to feel comfortable and accepted, it's extremely positive for recovery and resilience to have a support like that.

 

[LizzyM]

Imo rainbow pins should be left out of the office for the same reason "I <3 women" pins should be left at home. Its simply unprofessional to broadcast sexual orientation info in the office no matter what your sexual orientation is. I wouldnt be seen by a Dr. wearing either pin because I want my physician to be a professional, not an activist while I am being examined .

As a physican would you put pressure on the hospital administration to forbid hospital staffers from wearing pins, ribbons, buttons that might be interpreted to be indicative of sexual orientation?

 

[phltz]

I definitely agree that this is taking it to a new level of stupidity, but I think the patient's individual right to choose a doctor based on whatever criteria they want is absolutely critical.

Yeah, the patient has a right to be as stupid and bigoted as he or she wants, and in most circumstances, the hospital/physicians/other staff should probably just keep getting along with delivering care. It's not acceptable for doctors to be similarly bigoted because we are professionals with a code of conduct and ethics to uphold. The expectations for patients' behavior and that of doctors are simply not comparable.

Outside of the immediate situation, however, in public debates, in op-ed pages, internet forums, etc, I think it's wholly appropriate for health care professionals to advocate that people behave better than this. Just because you're willing to accept bigoted patients without getting sidetracked by the whole discussion in the clinic doesn't mean that you can never talk about the situation.

 

[phltz]

Agree! Gene + Environment

I think religion is more commonly &quot;inherited.&quot; Religion cannot be compared to sexual orientation. Religion is protected because it is truly unique and influences much more the population then 12% or so of the pop that is gay (read that was around the % gblt - could be wrong). I can't offer a solid analogy either or what sexual orientation could even relate too that wouldn't piss off a bunch of people.

Religion is protected because thousands of years of history tell us that, given half a chance, religious differences will turn into strife or even blow up into catastrophic, genocidal wars. Better to nip that in the bud, and establish a policy of not stirring that kettle of worms.

 

[NickNaylor]

Yeah, the patient has a right to be as stupid and bigoted as he or she wants, and in most circumstances, the hospital/physicians/other staff should probably just keep getting along with delivering care. It's not acceptable for doctors to be similarly bigoted because we are professionals with a code of conduct and ethics to uphold. The expectations for patients' behavior and that of doctors are simply not comparable.

Outside of the immediate situation, however, in public debates, in op-ed pages, internet forums, etc, I think it's wholly appropriate for health care professionals to advocate that people behave better than this. Just because you're willing to accept bigoted patients without getting sidetracked by the whole discussion in the clinic doesn't mean that you can never talk about the situation.

I'm really not sure how it's bigoted? If I feel more comfortable with a Hispanic doctor over a black doctor (and, thus, am more likely to share health information with him), does that mean I'm bigoted? What if I prefer a male to a female (which I do in real life)? Does that mean I'm a bigot? I'm not going to throw a fit about it, but given a choice, yes, I would prefer a male doctor.

I agree that talking about cultural sensitivity is important, but I don't think in this case it's even applicable. It's all about culture and being able to understand and relate to your physician. I don't see how that's even related to bigotry.

 

[phltz]

Imo rainbow pins should be left out of the office for the same reason &quot;I <3 women&quot; pins should be left at home. Its simply unprofessional to broadcast sexual orientation info in the office no matter what your sexual orientation is. I wouldnt be seen by a Dr. wearing either pin because I want my physician to be a professional, not an activist while I am being examined .

Should doctors wear engagement/wedding rings? Have photographs of their spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or children on their desk? Should pregnant physicians see patients after their bump starts to show? Please help me to understand how you aren't singling gay physicians out as needing to keep their lives uniquely under wraps, while all the straight physicians are free to let slip whatever information about their personal life.

 

[phltz]

I'm really not sure how it's bigoted? If I feel more comfortable with a Hispanic doctor over a black doctor (and, thus, am more likely to share health information with him), does that mean I'm bigoted? What if I prefer a male to a female (which I do in real life)? Does that mean I'm a bigot? I'm not going to throw a fit about it, but given a choice, yes, I would prefer a male doctor.

I agree that talking about cultural sensitivity is important, but I don't think in this case it's even applicable. It's all about culture and being able to understand and relate to your physician. I don't see how that's even related to bigotry.

There's a big difference between wanting a primary care physician you feel most personally comfortable with, and insisting that while you are in the hospital for a broken leg, no doctor, nurse, or technician who is gay can be involved in your treatment. If you want a male PCP, more power to you. If you're going to get all huffy over the x-ray tech's personal life, yeah, I'd say you're a bigot.

 

[eli20]

I'm really not sure how it's bigoted? If I feel more comfortable with a Hispanic doctor over a black doctor (and, thus, am more likely to share health information with him), does that mean I'm bigoted? What if I prefer a male to a female (which I do in real life)? Does that mean I'm a bigot? I'm not going to throw a fit about it, but given a choice, yes, I would prefer a male doctor.

I agree that talking about cultural sensitivity is important, but I don't think in this case it's even applicable. It's all about culture and being able to understand and relate to your physician. I don't see how that's even related to bigotry.

I think the difference is somewhat semantic, but to me saying "I'm more comfortable with ___" is A LOT different than "I don't want to be treated by that person because they're black/hispanic/gay/female etc."

 

[45408]

Should doctors wear engagement/wedding rings? Have photographs of their spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or children on their desk? Should pregnant physicians see patients after their bump starts to show? Please help me to understand how you aren't singling gay physicians out as needing to keep their lives uniquely under wraps, while all the straight physicians are free to let slip whatever information about their personal life.

1. People can interpret the ring to mean whatever they want. If a gay doctor wore a wedding ring, nobody's going to see it and go "Ah, he's gay."

2. Why are patients in the physician's office? I've never seen any patient go into the office of any of my staff, nor have I ever been in my own PCP's office.

 

[ZsaZsaM]

This thread has it all:

- Homophobic troll
- Racism accusations
- Sprinkled in memes
- Political debate
- Nature/nurture debate

WIN 👍

LOL. Glad to see it is getting back on topic, though.

I don't see a problem with wearing a pin to "identify" your orientation. As someone posted in the comments on the HP article, it allows other LGBTQ persons recognize that it is "safe" for them to discuss things with their doc they may not otherwise be comfortable talking about. Obviously it would be nice if they could discuss certain matters with any PCP they see, but if they need a "safe" doc, so be it.

 

[alexandertg6]

As a physican would you put pressure on the hospital administration to forbid hospital staffers from wearing pins, ribbons, buttons that might be interpreted to be indicative of sexual orientation?

No, the administration should not forbid expression of sexual orientation unless it is vulgar because it opens the administration up to unnecessary questions about being anti-gay. Ideally health professionals would simply choose to not wear indicators of sexual orientation while seeing patients. Again from an unbiased patient's point of view, they could be seen as unprofessional on par with wearing an "I <3 being married" button. It is not offensive, just unprofessional by the definition of professionalism which is: the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person. (Merriam-Webster)

When seeing patients, doctors are healers, not banners for any sort of political or sexual information not directly relating to health. Again just my $.02

Should doctors wear engagement/wedding rings? Have photographs of their spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or children on their desk? Should pregnant physicians see patients after their bump starts to show? Please help me to understand how you aren't singling gay physicians out as needing to keep their lives uniquely under wraps, while all the straight physicians are free to let slip whatever information about their personal life.

LGBT physicians should have pictures of their partner or children in their office or wear a special ring given to them by their partner if they choose to do so. Lesbians can still have children and should not "hide their bump" if they become pregnant. None of the things you stated are exclusive rights of heterosexual physicians... I do not advocate hiding who you are. I just do not advocate broadcasting information about your sexuality or other details of your personal life in an unprofessional way


There is a time and place for everything. I just think that while seeing patients your sexual orientation etc should be irrelevant and left out unless it casually comes up in conversation just as any detail of any physician's personal life should be.

 

[ponyo]

I didn't check any of these boxes but can say the reason I have a 3.6 instead of a higher GPA is because of one semester I was having a hard time with friends and family (I don't bring this up in interviews either if asked about this semester). I feel that even if it was an option on the application I wouldn't really need it because I got over relatively fast what takes some people years. It's hard to make other people understand when they haven't gone through it but there are certainly people out there who are capable of becoming good physicians that will never get the chance b/c of their sexuality (parent's disowning them for example, I actually knew one kid on the pre med track who's parents stopped paying for his college so he had to drop out).

I think that maybe you miss the point that many, many people have encountered obstacles of various kinds. Millions of women (and men) are abused by intimate partners. A million kids are maltreated nationally every year. Think of all the people with bipolar or even just major depression, and people who have gone through other traumatic, deeply personal events like getting raped/otherwise assaulted or having a miscarriage. All the people who feel not just sad, but rather unbearably guilty about the deaths of family and friends. These are not problems you can professionally talk about in a med school app yet so many of us have to deal with them. A lot of people would treat their heterosexuality for some of the **** they've gone through in a heartbeat. But they're not URMs, are they?

It's not that I don't recognize that being gay can suck. But just because other people aren't broadcasting their problems either doesn't mean we don't have them.

I've also got to admit that I think the idea of having URMs treat URMs because they are more comfortable is a little BS... it's only adding to the fire by saying we are different so find someone with your same differences. Theoretically, all physicians should be given cultural competency training. I think the desire on behalf of the URM is based in a lack of desire to get out of their comfort zone. I will say that I was interested in finding a gay primary care doc to make things easier but then I found my GP and he is straight and amazing. He knows all of the right things to ask and it made me see that you don't have to be gay to treat a gay, you just have to be willing to learn what is necessary and what is different. I think the same thing goes with say asians treating asians or blacks treating blacks... are they the only ones capable? I just feel like the medical institution needs to push people forward to accepted differences and get out of their comfort zone (just like the government pushed people forward to accept abolition of slavery and did the same with civil rights, after all it's rarely the majority that is progressive).

EDIT: I forgot to say that this whole idea of like treating like goes against what I viewed as a fundamental principal of "everyone is equal." If everyone is equal then why are only some able to treat some and others not? If we are equal then let us actually be treated as if there aren't differences.

Ummm... the fact that we're equal doesn't mean we're not DIFFERENT people? And I'm sorry, but cultural competency trainings are pretty useless, especially when you consider the obvious fact that you can't actually be an expert on EVERY culture/subgroup. At some point in your conversation with a Chinese immigrant patient, they're going to start asking you questions that you just won't understand. Yes, maybe if you were really well-versed in Chinese culture you could kind of talk to them, but are you going to do that for every sub-culture in every continent? There are fundamental paradigmatic differences that a 2hr seminar will do very little to bridge.

This will be especially true in primary care, when a ton of the time you'll be wondering what the pt is not telling you, esp with immigrants and lower SES populations who aren't used to primary care, and the establishment of a sense of personal connection is absolutely crucial. You're fine with your physician because your ENTIRE life isn't defined by the fact that you are gay and presumably you share other things. What if I sent you to a village healer who doesn't speak English and subscribes to an entirely different set of beliefs about medicine, which you think is at least 30% bull****? Can you really trust and fully communicate with him in a 20min visit?

Medical institutions are not the ones that are supposed to push people out of their comfort zone. I think in a medical setting, most people are far enough from their comfort zone as it is and communication among even similar doctors and patients is a HUGE issue. You're thinking of EDUCATIONAL institutions.

 

[phltz]

1. People can interpret the ring to mean whatever they want. If a gay doctor wore a wedding ring, nobody's going to see it and go &quot;Ah, he's gay.&quot;

People will see an engagement ring on a woman's hand and assume she's engaged to a man, just like they'll see a rainbow pin on a man's jacket and assume he's gay. The woman might be engaged to another woman, and the man might just be showing support for his gay brother, but that's not going to be what people assume.

 

[alexandertg6]

It's comforting to identify with your doctor, like it was mentioned being gay is not just simply same sex attractions, but also common experiences and view points. My family and I have a pretty good relationship with our primary care physician and can identify with him on many levels, including the fact that we all hail from similar backgrounds.

Furthermore, a rainbow pin is a symbol, which many of my friends who support gay marriage wear them. It makes LGBT persons feel more comfortable and not have to fear of being judged or discriminated. Every patient deserves to feel comfortable and accepted, it's extremely positive for recovery and resilience to have a support like that.

I think this is a very valid point.

 

[mauberley]

It is not offensive, just unprofessional by the definition of professionalism which is: the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person. (Merriam-Webster)

Well, no, it's unprofessional by the definition of what someone has said is professional for physicians. The dictionary definition is only giving the rather obvious connection from the state of being professional to the actual occupation.

It can follow, therefore, that what is professional for physicians is arbitrary in the sense that it doesn't derive naturally from immutable laws; rather, it comes from a collective (cultural) standard. It is also somewhat of a given that culture is not static but changes with time.

The question of "should someone who wears a rainbow flag pin remove it because it's unprofessional?" was an example posited by the presenter during a session on professionalism at my school. In an ideal world, physicians would present a neutral stance and this would be a moot point, because wearing the pin wouldn't be necessary nor potentially offensive. But when you consider this in the context of providing healthcare and you want to reach out to a demographic where it's not unheard of to avoid physicians because of fear, wearing such a symbol aids in this goal and all of a sudden the issue is less clear.

 

[alexandertg6]

But when you consider this in the context of providing healthcare and you want to reach out to a demographic where it's not unheard of to avoid physicians because of fear, wearing such a symbol aids in this goal and all of a sudden the issue is less clear.

The issue is definitely far from clear. I just wonder if that goal of reaching out to that demographic may be done without broadcasting one's own sexual orientation quite so explicitly to the other 90%. My school had signs on the doors of many offices etc that said "LGBT safe zone" or some equivalent, but that may not be nearly as effective.

Another possible solution might be a website or something allowing LGBT physicians and patients to find each other without physicians having to designate themselves as LGBT to their general patient body. That might be a way everyone could win?

 

[mauberley]

The issue is definitely far from clear. I just wonder if that goal of reaching out to that demographic may be done without broadcasting one's own sexual orientation quite so explicitly to the other 90%. My school had signs on the doors of many offices etc that said "LGBT safe zone" or some equivalent, but that may not be nearly as effective

I personally don't equate wearing the rainbow pin to mean the person is gay, but it does tell me the person is at least LGBT-friendly. Would the Human Rights Campaign symbol be more acceptable?

There are gay yellow pages, but again, it's a matter of advertising/getting the word out (such things don't exist everywhere).

 

[alexandertg6]

There are gay yellow pages, but again, it's a matter of advertising/getting the word out (such things don't exist everywhere).

I just googled this and they honestly all appear very low quality (in terms of visuals, programming, utility etc).

Heres my idea for a super easy fix:
a simple, easy to use website without advertisements specifically for connecting LGBT doctors and patients

It would need a revenue model even if it is not profit generating because it would have maintenance costs. Perhaps physicians pay $3/month to host themselves on the site?

As far as marketing goes, word of mouth would only get it so far so I would suggest a gorilla marketing campaign starting in the beach-head city with stickers including a rainbow, a slogan stating what the site does, and the web address. If that takes off, I would use Facebook or other demographic specific, cheap advertising to target that single demographic in a particular area as well as any other channels frequented by the target demographic.

thats my business plan in under 5 minutes at 1:30 am.

 

[MD Odyssey]

I thought the point of URM was to address disparities of representation in medicine due to hardships and other factors that limit qualification.

The point of URM is to give adcoms a sense of moral and social superiority. It has nothing to do with training better physicians.