Patients avoiding gay doctors

[ppfizenm]

And generalizing prison women findings to lesbian women outside of prison is a good idea? Look, I'll apologize for the rash response, but you were not expecting any cleaner a response...

Personally I just intensely hate when people start analyzing a complex situation, such as prison life and look through it in such a simplistic way.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing. Prison dynamics are much much different than the real world.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

Why would people chose to have eating disorders, which is a lot higher percentage than gays? Or even better, why would many gay people chose to no longer be gay?

Um... you should watch "Because the Bible Tells Me So." Not to bring religion into the debate over the genetics of homosexuality, but they make a point on these "ex gays." But before I get to the movie, for those that just choose to change, well, there are many different possible explanations. What if the person was actually just bisexual? Their change in sexuality is therefore just based on a classification scheme that boxes people into two polarized alternatives: to like men or woman. What if their sexuality is actually fluid and they legitimately changed? And what if they are choosing to no longer be gay out of the fear of eternal damnation that is so often pushed on us in American culture and they really are still gay but just acting to appease others and their god? Anyway, this brings us back to the movie and the topic of conversion therapy... if it was possible for it to work, each therapist wouldn't have their own method but there would actually be A method that works.

I do not hate gays. I think many gay people are actually very good people and great doctors. I just do not buy into to this whole "I am gay from my genes" idea.

Obviously, you are not gay...

BUT let's turn this back on you... if sexuality isn't genetic, there is a decision component or learning component to it (side note: I can tell you that I learned to be straight from the culture that I grew up in so that is out and I "decided" to deny my gay feelings until in 8th grade I realized that I was being stupid because they weren't going to change). So when did you decide to be straight? Why are you straight? Could you foresee yourself choosing to be with a same-sex partner? If not, why not?

As for genetics playing a part... in model organisms (I would hope by now that you have learned the genetic similarities between H. sapiens and other animals and how similar genes play similar roles across the animal kingdom) there are genes that when mutated switch the sexuality of the animal. Did this genetic determination just "die out" before we evolved? Or is it possible that there is some remnant of it in our species?

Continuing well off topic...
When you look at "homosexual" relationships among women in prison. Is that choice? fluidity? ...bi/homosexual women going to prison in higher numbers?

these are things I think about

Ok, I didn't quote Miss Alyssa to bring prisons into this. I just wanted to bring in the topic of lesbians.

In my posts, I have been trying to spotlight and say "gay men" or "gay women." THis is because, as would be expected, the studies out there seem to show that women's and men's sexuality are different. Women tend to be more fluid. Yes, this might simply be our different acculturations but the studies of maternally passed down genetic determinants (at least the statistically probable existence of such) tend to hold more true for men than woman. They also found some marker (I want to say on like the telomere of some chromosome) on men that correlated with homosexuality but was absent in women.

The point of the last point is to say that women and men are different and this makes sense, think about it, would a set of genes more likely code for "be attracted to opposite" or "be attracted to MAN/WOMAN"? open ended commands like "opposite" seem a little odd in biology. Anyway, the paper that I read suggested that maybe men have a gene to be attracted to women and when mutated or whatnot, the men are attracted to men (or both) while the women have a set of genes that points them to men until changed and both don't have a "seek other" gene. Different genes for the sexes wouldn't be a novel idea for this system since it's present in others, too.

 

[Caesar]

Let's not debate sexuality here. People who don't believe it is not a choice never will because they clearly don't accept science as science.

Let's go back to the OP or just let this thread die. Please?

Also, PRISON DYNAMICS? You'll never get into a good med school if you chose to be gay in prison.... Carib for you fo sure. (read this with sarcasm)

 

[NickNaylor]

Of course this thread brings the rabid cultural marxists out of their cages to remind us of the existentially empty, nihilistic utopia that we must become.



Who's the hateful one again?

Nice.

 

[BenPRunkle]

Um... you should watch "Because the Bible Tells Me So." Not to bring religion into the debate over the genetics of homosexuality, but they make a point on these "ex gays." But before I get to the movie, for those that just choose to change, well, there are many different possible explanations. What if the person was actually just bisexual? Their change in sexuality is therefore just based on a classification scheme that boxes people into two polarized alternatives: to like men or woman. What if their sexuality is actually fluid and they legitimately changed? And what if they are choosing to no longer be gay out of the fear of eternal damnation that is so often pushed on us in American culture and they really are still gay but just acting to appease others and their god? Anyway, this brings us back to the movie and the topic of conversion therapy... if it was possible for it to work, each therapist wouldn't have their own method but there would actually be A method that works.




Obviously, you are not gay...

BUT let's turn this back on you... if sexuality isn't genetic, there is a decision component or learning component to it (side note: I can tell you that I learned to be straight from the culture that I grew up in so that is out and I "decided" to deny my gay feelings until in 8th grade I realized that I was being stupid because they weren't going to change). So when did you decide to be straight? Why are you straight? Could you foresee yourself choosing to be with a same-sex partner? If not, why not?

As for genetics playing a part... in model organisms (I would hope by now that you have learned the genetic similarities between H. sapiens and other animals and how similar genes play similar roles across the animal kingdom) there are genes that when mutated switch the sexuality of the animal. Did this genetic determination just "die out" before we evolved? Or is it possible that there is some remnant of it in our species?




Ok, I didn't quote Miss Alyssa to bring prisons into this. I just wanted to bring in the topic of lesbians.

In my posts, I have been trying to spotlight and say "gay men" or "gay women." THis is because, as would be expected, the studies out there seem to show that women's and men's sexuality are different. Women tend to be more fluid. Yes, this might simply be our different acculturations but the studies of maternally passed down genetic determinants (at least the statistically probable existence of such) tend to hold more true for men than woman. They also found some marker (I want to say on like the telomere of some chromosome) on men that correlated with homosexuality but was absent in women.

The point of the last point is to say that women and men are different and this makes sense, think about it, would a set of genes more likely code for "be attracted to opposite" or "be attracted to MAN/WOMAN"? open ended commands like "opposite" seem a little odd in biology. Anyway, the paper that I read suggested that maybe men have a gene to be attracted to women and when mutated or whatnot, the men are attracted to men (or both) while the women have a set of genes that points them to men until changed and both don't have a "seek other" gene. Different genes for the sexes wouldn't be a novel idea for this system since it's present in others, too.

Again you are still referring gays to mutants and you are putting them in the same category as downs syndrome 😕.

With your whole big explanation you do realize it is still purely speculation. I want to see all these so called "smart and culturally sophisticated" people provide some hard evidence.

 

[HumbleMD]

Of course this thread brings the rabid cultural marxists out of their cages to remind us of the existentially empty, nihilistic utopia that we must become.



Who's the hateful one again?

"Cultural marxist?" Does that come with a tin-foil hat and a Michelle Bachman for president campaign pin?

A world where minority groups are protected against folks who want to deny their rights, or even deny their existence, isn't "existentially empty," and unfortunately far from a utopia. Welcome to medicine, where, in the name of compassion and understanding, the majority of schools and hospitals have non-discrimination clauses protecting religion, race, gender, disability status, and sexuality (and some are even adding gender identity). We're here, we're queer, and it would behoove you to get used to it.

Hateful? No. But I have one hell of a chip on my shoulder when I see future physicians taking stances that would hurt future patients simply because they are unlike them in some respect.

PS the gay genetics debate is an irrelevant one (though Natrix is correct - they've made gay fruit flies). Mormonism isn't genetic, yet I don't see states running around making sure they can't marry, hold jobs, or see patients, despite the fact that mainstream, majority Christianity doesn't agree with their tenets.

 

[NickNaylor]

"Cultural marxist?" Does that come with a tin-foil hat and a Michelle Bachman for president campaign pin?

A world where minority groups are protected against folks who want to deny their rights, or even deny their existence, isn't "existentially empty," and unfortunately far from a utopia. Welcome to medicine, where, in the name of compassion and understanding, the majority of schools and hospitals have non-discrimination clauses protecting religion, race, gender, disability status, and sexuality (and some are even adding gender identity). We're here, we're queer, and it would behoove you to get used to it.

Hateful? No. But I have one hell of a chip on my shoulder when I see future physicians taking stances that would hurt future patients simply because they are unlike them in some respect.

PS the gay genetics debate is an irrelevant one (though Natrix is correct - they've made gay fruit flies). Mormonism isn't genetic, yet I don't see states running around making sure they can't marry, hold jobs, or see patients, despite the fact that mainstream, majority Christianity doesn't agree with their tenets.

I believe he was pointing out the irony that you called someone out for being hateful and then in the very next sentence said something denigrating. He didn't mention anything about denying rights.

The bolded is pretty cute though.

 

[phltz]

BUT let's turn this back on you... if sexuality isn't genetic, there is a decision component or learning component to it

People always get fixated on a "nature vs. nurture" dichotomy, and end up coming to conclusions like this. There are more possibilities than just genetic and cultural influences. There's evidence suggesting that the biochemistry of the mother's womb has a strong influence on whether men turn out to be homosexual. I would assume that this doesn't account for 100% of the influence, but I would encourage you to consider a broader range of possibilities than "it's in the genes" vs "it's a choice/cultural influence".

 

[ppfizenm]

I believe he was pointing out the irony that you called someone out for being hateful and then in the very next sentence said something denigrating. He didn't mention anything about denying rights.

The bolded is pretty cute though.

I believe humbleMD was letting the anger show through that stems from listening someone talk, or in this case post, on something that they are less than versed in.

Imagine the denigrating feeling you get when you sit in a room and people are talking about you, and not always in the nicest way, in full knowledge that you are also there. Now imagine that room is the floor of the House and the talk is a debate about your rights. There is flare of anger at the impertinence and ignorance of the situation, and at the same time a feeling of helplessness coming from the fact that a group of people, few of whom are like you, are sitting in a room talking about whether to give you rights or take them away.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

People always get fixated on a "nature vs. nurture" dichotomy, and end up coming to conclusions like this. There are more possibilities than just genetic and cultural influences. There's evidence suggesting that the biochemistry of the mother's womb has a strong influence on whether men turn out to be homosexual. I would assume that this doesn't account for 100% of the influence, but I would encourage you to consider a broader range of possibilities than "it's in the genes" vs "it's a choice/cultural influence".

I wasn't trying to simplifying to a "nature vs. nurture debate." So for that I apologize. What I was trying to do was to say that the factors that form one's sexuality are largely out of the control of said person. If my mom's womb did it to me, well that was her genetics. If it was how my family interacted with me, well that was again not in my control. I'm just saying that sexuality is often the byproduct of many factors, and more often than not these don't include the conscious decision to be gay.

I believe humbleMD was letting the anger show through that stems from listening someone talk, or in this case post, on something that they are less than versed in.

Imagine the denigrating feeling you get when you sit in a room and people are talking about you, and not always in the nicest way, in full knowledge that you are also there. Now imagine that room is the floor of the House and the talk is a debate about your rights. There is flare of anger at the impertinence and ignorance of the situation, and at the same time a feeling of helplessness coming from the fact that a group of people, few of whom are like you, are sitting in a room talking about whether to give you rights or take them away.

I like this. It's an odd feeling ESPECIALLY because when they talk about it it's obvious that they have NO idea about it and all of them are trying to appease their ignorant electorate that thinks not with their intelligence but with their "personal experience and beliefs" (aka religion, etc.)

 

[Tin Man]

I'm not entirely sure why we're arguing about this. People choose their religion, and that's protected. People don't choose their skin color, and that's protected.

So... why does this matter again?

 

[LizzyM]

Funny thing just came to mind from back in 1981 when President Reagan was shot. He could joke, and said to his doctors before being taken to the OR, "I hope you are all Republicans" and the surgeon said, "Mr. President, today we are all Republicans."


Back on topic, many people who work in pediatrics wear many shiny and playful things on their badges and coats and stethoscopes to distract and amuse the children. Do kids know that adults might wear a rainbow pin to signal their position over a human resources issue at that hospital? I would think that a parent who stated that they didn't want anyone who was gay being engaged in the care of their child would have to be told a few things:

• not every gay employee is wearing a rainbow so I can't accurately identify all "the gays"
• not every employee wearing a rainbow pin is gay (some just like rainbows and puppies etc) so some non-gay personnel would be excluded unnecessarily
• the hospital is staffed to meet the needs of the patients we have; if we exclude some employees from their jobs, there may not be someone to provide care when your kid needs it
• Your kid is not going to be molested by a gay person of the same sex any more than they might be molested by a straight person of the opposite sex.
• Your kid can't catch "gay"
• Wearing the rainbow pin is a message of solidarity over a civil rights/human resources debate within the institution and we won't stiffle that as long as it remains discrete
• Kids have to be taught to hate and fear. If you don't tell your kid to hate gays and don't tell them that a rainbow pin equals gay, what are you worried about?

I think that parents who want to dictate "no gays" in the care of their children need to be stood up to the same as if they said, "I don't want any blacks (including nurses, aides, techs, etc) touching my baby." Ditto if ithe prohibition was no Mexicans, no Muslims, no Muggles.

 

[NickNaylor]

I believe humbleMD was letting the anger show through that stems from listening someone talk, or in this case post, on something that they are less than versed in.

Imagine the denigrating feeling you get when you sit in a room and people are talking about you, and not always in the nicest way, in full knowledge that you are also there. Now imagine that room is the floor of the House and the talk is a debate about your rights. There is flare of anger at the impertinence and ignorance of the situation, and at the same time a feeling of helplessness coming from the fact that a group of people, few of whom are like you, are sitting in a room talking about whether to give you rights or take them away.

I can understand the frustration. That doesn't make hypocrisy any less laughable.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm not entirely sure why we're arguing about this. People choose their religion, and that's protected. People don't choose their skin color, and that's protected.

So... why does this matter again?

Because it's immoral!!!!1111

 

[Tin Man]

Because it's immoral!!!!1111

Prove it.

We're all scientists here, right?

 

[LizzyM]

Because it's immoral!!!!1111

What is immoral? Being gay or discriminating against people for being gay?

 

[ncrassa]

In case anyone is interested, here is the seminal alternative splicing paper reporting a genetic basis (at least in part) for sexuality in Drosophila: http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(05)00407-1

It's a really elegant paper and well worth the read for any biologist.

 

[kpcrew]

Prove it.

We're all scientists here, right?

He's being sarcastic (you can tell by the ones instead of the exclamation points)

 

[ZsaZsaM]

He's being sarcastic (you can tell by the ones instead of the exclamation points)

Yes, I thought that was obvious. Clearly not.

 

[niblet]

Are we talking about giving homosexuals basic human rights or about wearing a pin that connotes a behavior that not everyone is okay with? Inevitably in debates like the latter there'll be the side (and we know which one that is) that way too easily resorts to personal attacks by calling the other side hateful, ignorant, and bigoted.

It's not about homophobia, it's about personal values. I don't hate homosexual people, and in fact there is nothing inherent about being homosexual that makes me prone to dislike a person who is. What I have a problem with is the people who want to force their version of morality on everyone else, which is incredibly ironic considering that's also the problem they're reacting to. That doesn't make me a bigot, as many would have it.

Shifting focus, whether or not there is a genetic basis for homosexuality is immaterial. We are all products of our genes and environment, and few things outside of what clothes we decide to wear each day are truly choices.

"Cultural marxist?" Does that come with a tin-foil hat and a Michelle Bachman for president campaign pin?

Nope, neither. But just because you don't personally subscribe to cultural marxism as a philosophy doesn't mean you don't embody some of its insidious tenets.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Are we talking about giving homosexuals basic human rights or about wearing a pin that connotes a behavior that not everyone is okay with? Inevitably in debates like the latter there'll be the side (and we know which one that is) that way too easily resorts to personal attacks by calling the other side hateful, ignorant, and bigoted.

It's not about homophobia, it's about personal values. I don't hate homosexual people, and in fact there is nothing inherent about being homosexual that makes me prone to dislike a person who is. What I have a problem with is the people who want to force their version of morality on everyone else, which is incredibly ironic considering that's also the problem they're reacting to. That doesn't make me a bigot, as many would have it.

Shifting focus, whether or not there is a genetic basis for homosexuality is immaterial. We are all products of our genes and environment, and few things outside of what clothes we decide to wear each day are truly choices.



Nope, neither. But just because you don't personally subscribe to cultural marxism as a philosophy doesn't mean you don't embody some of its insidious tenets.

No one is asking you to change your religious or moral paradigm, however is a little respect too much to ask for? And if that really is too much for you to accomplish, then really adhere to the phrase, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it." However even that is a bit too much to ask for the *****ic at heart, and for those who that is too much to accomplish, well is there any word other than bigot to better describe them?

 

[HumbleMD]

It's not about homophobia, it's about personal values. I don't hate homosexual people, and in fact there is nothing inherent about being homosexual that makes me prone to dislike a person who is. What I have a problem with is the people who want to force their version of morality on everyone else, which is incredibly ironic considering that's also the problem they're reacting to. That doesn't make me a bigot, as many would have it.

If being a homosexual is simply a position to take on something, why do you take issue with a rainbow pin? My own "personal value" is that I think breast cancer is vastly over-funded (many agree with me), but you don't see me running around calling for docs to take off their pink ribbon lapels. Speaking of double-standards, I'd love to know your stance on head scarves for Muslim women.

No one is denying anyone the right to hate gay people. It is still America, and even if one wants to be a racist homophobic bigot, so be it. However, in medicine, the culture is a progressive, open, and understanding one (check the AMA stance on most issues, including LGBT ones). Cultural competency is an LCME requirement in medical schools, and it is unacceptable for one to be intolerant of people different than themselves in medicine. Many (mostly straight) med students and docs wear rainbow pins so our LGBT patients don't think we are homophobes, and will tell us everything that is going on. It's not about outing ourselves, or even about taking an activist stance on gay marriage, DADT, or DOMA.

Note I said it's for patients. When you finally get to medical school and into the hospital, you'll realize that the majority of these issues become much easier and clear-cut when you focus on the patient instead of hegemonic ideals or your own personal beliefs

 

[NickNaylor]

If being a homosexual is simply a position to take on something, why do you take issue with a rainbow pin? My own "personal value" is that I think breast cancer is vastly over-funded (many agree with me), but you don't see me running around calling for docs to take off their pink ribbon lapels. Speaking of double-standards, I'd love to know your stance on head scarves for Muslim women.

No one is denying anyone the right to hate gay people. It is still America, and even if one wants to be a racist homophobic bigot, so be it. However, in medicine, the culture is a progressive, open, and understanding one (check the AMA stance on most issues, including LGBT ones). Cultural competency is an LCME requirement in medical schools, and it is unacceptable for one to be intolerant of people different than themselves in medicine. Many (mostly straight) med students and docs wear rainbow pins so our LGBT patients don't think we are homophobes, and will tell us everything that is going on. It's not about outing ourselves, or even about taking an activist stance on gay marriage, DADT, or DOMA.

Note I said it's for patients. When you finally get to medical school and into the hospital, you'll realize that the majority of these issues become much easier and clear-cut when you focus on the patient instead of hegemonic ideals or your own personal beliefs

I didn't realize the AMA and the medical institution gets to dictate what I think about politically controversial things.

I think very, very few people would allow their personal beliefs to get in the way of patient care. That really wasn't what niblet was getting at. It's more about the hypocrisy of progressives enforcing their morals and value systems on others in the course of objecting to generally traditional values and morals being imposed on them. If you're going to call people that think homosexuality is wrong "bigots," then frankly I think it's just as right to call people that impose acceptance of homosexuality on others "bigots." Both impose values they think are right on others that disagree.

I fully support homosexual rights (i.e., right to marriage and the various benefits that come from marriage, LGBT as a federally protected "status," etc.), but by no means does that somehow translate to wanting to be engulfed in the gay culture, just as I'm sure you don't want to be engulfed in, for example, the conservative Christian culture (though you may not have any bones to pick with conservative Christians). There IS a difference.

 

[45408]

Note I said it's for patients. When you finally get to medical school and into the hospital, you'll realize that the majority of these issues become much easier and clear-cut when you focus on the patient instead of hegemonic ideals or your own personal beliefs

I don't think that wearing a pin is really going to be "for the patients." Either you exhibit a demeanor that engenders open lines of communication with your patients, or you don't.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

If you're going to call people that think homosexuality is wrong "bigots," then frankly I think it's just as right to call people that impose acceptance of homosexuality on others "bigots." Both impose values they think are right on others that disagree.

hurrdurr what the moral relativism?'

your patently absurd argument can be applied to women, minorities, etc etc etc and say discriminating against people who discriminate based on these statuses is wrong. please i know your reasoning faculties are better than this.

 

[HumbleMD]

I didn't realize the AMA and the medical institution gets to dictate what I think about politically controversial things.

I think very, very few people would allow their personal beliefs to get in the way of patient care. That really wasn't what niblet was getting at. It's more about the hypocrisy of progressives enforcing their morals and value systems on others in the course of objecting to generally traditional values and morals being imposed on them. If you're going to call people that think homosexuality is wrong "bigots," then frankly I think it's just as right to call people that impose acceptance of homosexuality on others "bigots." Both impose values they think are right on others that disagree.

I fully support homosexual rights (i.e., right to marriage and the various benefits that come from marriage, LGBT as a federally protected "status," etc.), but by no means does that somehow translate to wanting to be engulfed in the gay culture, just as I'm sure you don't want to be engulfed in, for example, the conservative Christian culture (though you may not have any bones to pick with conservative Christians). There IS a difference.

The AMA seems like a nice litmus test of where the majority of MDs stand on issues. You have a right to take a different position, but your dissonance might cause you to at least think why you hold a position, and the majority of your peers do not.

Note also, I was careful to word my post with an impersonal "one." I was calling no one a bigot; but people are indeed free to hold bigoted views; they just aren't free to act on all of them in society or the professional culture of medicine.

How is my wearing a rainbow lapel pin to help my LGBT patients feel more comfortable "forcing" you to accept anything about homosexuality? Am I forcing you to have sex with a man? Am a forcing you into a gay marriage? If you "disagree" with something about homosexuality, then don't have gay sex, don't be in gay relationships, and don't pursue a gay marriage. It's pretty simple. I don't understand why people take issue with an "affront" on their values by gays merely existing and asking for some basic protections under the law.

And you may be surprised to know I am a progressive Christian. But, I don't think you need to talk to non-Christians about feeling "engulfed" in Christian culture.

 

[Smachadams]

No one is asking you to change your religious or moral paradigm, however is a little respect too much to ask for? And if that really is too much for you to accomplish, then really adhere to the phrase, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it." However even that is a bit too much to ask for the *****ic at heart, and for those who that is too much to accomplish, well is there any word other than bigot to better describe them?

Since when does disagreeing with somone about your personal beliefs make them disrespectful? Grow up.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Since when does disagreeing with somone about your personal beliefs make them disrespectful? Grow up.

When does using a strawman make you not lose an argument? Grow up.

 

[NickNaylor]

hurrdurr what the moral relativism?'

your patently absurd argument can be applied to women, minorities, etc etc etc and say discriminating against people who discriminate based on these statuses is wrong. please i know your reasoning faculties are better than this.

My point was more about being a disrespectful ass towards someone/throwing out charged words (i.e., bigot) just because they disagree with your worldview rather than arguing for moral relativism.

The AMA seems like a nice litmus test of where the majority of MDs stand on issues. You have a right to take a different position, but your dissonance might cause you to at least think why you hold a position, and the majority of your peers do not.

Note also, I was careful to word my post with an impersonal "one." I was calling no one a bigot; but people are indeed free to hold bigoted views; they just aren't free to act on all of them in society or the professional culture of medicine.

How is my wearing a rainbow lapel pin to help my LGBT patients feel more comfortable "forcing" you to accept anything about homosexuality? Am I forcing you to have sex with a man? Am a forcing you into a gay marriage? If you "disagree" with something about homosexuality, then don't have gay sex, don't be in gay relationships, and don't pursue a gay marriage. It's pretty simple. I don't understand why people take issue with an "affront" on their values by gays merely existing and asking for some basic protections under the law.

And you may be surprised to know I am a progressive Christian. But, I don't think you need to talk to non-Christians about feeling "engulfed" in Christian culture.

Edited this out to prevent further thread decline.

 

[eHombre]

Back on topic, many people who work in pediatrics wear many shiny and playful things on their badges and coats and stethoscopes to distract and amuse the children. Do kids know that adults might wear a rainbow pin to signal their position over a human resources issue at that hospital? I would think that a parent who stated that they didn't want anyone who was gay being engaged in the care of their child would have to be told a few things:

• not every gay employee is wearing a rainbow so I can't accurately identify all "the gays"
• not every employee wearing a rainbow pin is gay (some just like rainbows and puppies etc) so some non-gay personnel would be excluded unnecessarily
• the hospital is staffed to meet the needs of the patients we have; if we exclude some employees from their jobs, there may not be someone to provide care when your kid needs it
• Your kid is not going to be molested by a gay person of the same sex any more than they might be molested by a straight person of the opposite sex.
• Your kid can't catch "gay"
• Wearing the rainbow pin is a message of solidarity over a civil rights/human resources debate within the institution and we won't stiffle that as long as it remains discrete
• Kids have to be taught to hate and fear. If you don't tell your kid to hate gays and don't tell them that a rainbow pin equals gay, what are you worried about?

I think that parents who want to dictate "no gays" in the care of their children need to be stood up to the same as if they said, "I don't want any blacks (including nurses, aides, techs, etc) touching my baby." Ditto if ithe prohibition was no Mexicans, no Muslims, no Muggles.

Yeah, I know I'm bumping LizzyM's comment, but this really is how this situation should and would be dealt with in an institutional setting.

/thread

 

[mmmcdowe]

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.


expand?

There are a few offices in NYC that no longer will see non-vaccinated children, citing the health risk for other children in their offices. It's causing a big hallabaloo, but currently they haven't backed down.

 

[phltz]

Are we talking about giving homosexuals basic human rights or about wearing a pin that connotes a behavior that not everyone is okay with?

The problem is that there is nothing in this world that "everyone is ok with". If you wear a small, tasteful crucifix on your neck, you'll run into a pagan or an atheist who's miffed about it. If you wear a wedding ring, some ultra-feminist can complain about the patriarchy. If you wear your nice cotton-linen blend shirt, some Christian fundamentalist nutjob is going to get mad that you're breaking the rules clearly laid out in Leviticus banning blended fiber clothes, even while his ultra-patriotic wife is mad that you're wearing a shirt made in Bangladesh instead of buying American. A vegan will get mad at your leather shoes, and a xenophobic right wing asshold will be upset you wear a headscarf. Some hardcore Republican will get mad you're not wearing an American flag lapel pin, an anarcho-syndicalist will get mad if you _do_ wear a flag pin, and some weirdo with a grudge against the state of Missouri will be mad if your flag pin has all 50 stars on it.

As health professionals, we will often make an effort to be inoffensive, bland, professional, etc. This doesn't mean we need to cater to the interests of every fringe nutjob that comes along. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately for you, you're on the wrong side of that line now. Society is moving on. You can find groups of like minded anti-homosexuality people to hang out with to feel like you're not on the fringe, but as time passes you're going to find that you're in a smaller and smaller group, and that the other people in there with you will be crazier and crazier.

 

[45408]

The AMA seems like a nice litmus test of where the majority of MDs stand on issues.

The majority of physicians do not belong to the AMA, and they differ from many physicians on important things (universal health care was a big one).

 

[alexandertg6]

The problem is that there is nothing in this world that "everyone is ok with". If you wear a small, tasteful crucifix on your neck, you'll run into a pagan or an atheist who's miffed about it. If you wear a wedding ring, some ultra-feminist can complain about the patriarchy. If you wear your nice cotton-linen blend shirt, some Christian fundamentalist nutjob is going to get mad that you're breaking the rules clearly laid out in Leviticus banning blended fiber clothes, even while his ultra-patriotic wife is mad that you're wearing a shirt made in Bangladesh instead of buying American. A vegan will get mad at your leather shoes, and a xenophobic right wing asshold will be upset you wear a headscarf. Some hardcore Republican will get mad you're not wearing an American flag lapel pin, an anarcho-syndicalist will get mad if you _do_ wear a flag pin, and some weirdo with a grudge against the state of Missouri will be mad if your flag pin has all 50 stars on it.

As health professionals, we will often make an effort to be inoffensive, bland, professional, etc. This doesn't mean we need to cater to the interests of every fringe nutjob that comes along. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately for you, you're on the wrong side of that line now. Society is moving on. You can find groups of like minded anti-homosexuality people to hang out with to feel like you're not on the fringe, but as time passes you're going to find that you're in a smaller and smaller group, and that the other people in there with you will be crazier and crazier.

Agree, we have to make an effort to be noncontroversial, but it is impossible to be totally unoffensive to everyone at all times.

 

[Tin Man]

Agree, we have to make an effort to be noncontroversial, but it is impossible to be totally unoffensive to everyone at all times.

The very fact that physicians are physicians offends most chiropractors and alternative-medicine practitioners....

 

[Wolfman89]

Eating disorders effect less than 1% of the population... everything else in this statement is equally wrong.

Which genetically speaking, if we don't consider environmental factors for the sake of simplifying the argument, could be explained by the rate of mutation alone.

However there is also the Kinsley hypothesis that sexuality is more fluid and that labels are more social constructs and that the majority of people are all somewhat bisexual.

Personal belief is that sexuality is somewhat of a spectrum instead of being a dichotomy.

And you may be surprised to know I am a progressive Christian. But, I don't think you need to talk to non-Christians about feeling "engulfed" in Christian culture.

If you don't mind me asking, are you UCC or something else?

 

[10Acious]

"If you're going to call people that think homosexuality is wrong "bigots," then frankly I think it's just as right to call people that impose acceptance of homosexuality on others "bigots." Both impose values they think are right on others that disagree."

I disagree. If you take this stance you cannot have moral debate at all- in that there is no "right". If you transpose this argument to racism, for example, you would refer to the racists as bigots, as well as the anti-racists who impose "acceptance" of non-racism on racists, bigots as well. Both sides are right under your argument and there is a moral impasse.

IMO there is a morally better disposition in this debate. There is a definite difference in the proponents of gay rights and the opposers. One side is trying to impose/continue RESTRICTIVE legislative laws on the other, while the other side merely wants EQUAL rights. To call both sides here "bigots" is just laughable.

 

[NickNaylor]

"If you're going to call people that think homosexuality is wrong "bigots," then frankly I think it's just as right to call people that impose acceptance of homosexuality on others "bigots." Both impose values they think are right on others that disagree."

I disagree. If you take this stance you cannot have moral debate at all- in that there is no "right". If you transpose this argument to racism, for example, you would refer to the racists as bigots, as well as the anti-racists who impose "acceptance" of non-racism on racists, bigots as well. Both sides are right under your argument and there is a moral impasse.

IMO there is a morally better disposition in this debate. There is a definite difference in the proponents of gay rights and the opposers. One side is trying to impose/continue RESTRICTIVE legislative laws on the other, while the other side merely wants EQUAL rights. To call both sides here "bigots" is just laughable.

Sure, but what happens when we progress from a debate to equal rights (which I agree with you about - that's not a pretty simple debate to have) to a discussion on whether we should include "awareness" and/or "acceptance" campaigns about the LGBT culture in schools? Or, better yet, in medical school curricula? In those situations there definitely isn't a more morally superior position, yet that's inevitably where these sorts of things go.

I totally support full equal rights for all people, the LGBT community included. Where things get more hairy for me is when we shove cultural education and acceptance down everyone's throats. That sort of thing is more of what I was getting at, NOT whether or not individuals should have full equality under the law.

 

[ppfizenm]

Sure, but what happens when we progress from a debate to equal rights (which I agree with you about - that's not a pretty simple debate to have) to a discussion on whether we should include "awareness" and/or "acceptance" campaigns about the LGBT culture in schools? Or, better yet, in medical school curricula? In those situations there definitely isn't a more morally superior position, yet that's inevitably where these sorts of things go.

I totally support full equal rights for all people, the LGBT community included. Where things get more hairy for me is when we shove cultural education and acceptance down everyone's throats. That sort of thing is more of what I was getting at, NOT whether or not individuals should have full equality under the law.

Without the cultural education we end up with a covert version of separate but equal. Lets direct our attention to texas where recently a gay male was beat, stabbed, and set on fire while being called "c**k-sucker" "p*ssy a** fa***t" and other derogatory epithets by three men. Should we not have tried to educate these people to prevent horrors like this? Also in an all to predictable move, the state cannot decide if this was a hate crime or not.

 

[candav]

Sure, but what happens when we progress from a debate to equal rights (which I agree with you about - that's not a pretty simple debate to have) to a discussion on whether we should include "awareness" and/or "acceptance" campaigns about the LGBT culture in schools? Or, better yet, in medical school curricula? In those situations there definitely isn't a more morally superior position, yet that's inevitably where these sorts of things go.

I totally support full equal rights for all people, the LGBT community included. Where things get more hairy for me is when we shove cultural education and acceptance down everyone's throats. That sort of thing is more of what I was getting at, NOT whether or not individuals should have full equality under the law.

I think the distinction here is that equal rights in writing =/= equal rights in practice. Because, as we all know, if the US passes a gay marriage law, homophobia will cease to exist and the LGBT community will become universally accepted, right? Equality -- not only in law, but in LIFE -- requires education and awareness among all citizens.

Edit: Dude above me got to it first! 🙂

 

[phltz]

Without the cultural education we end up with a covert version of separate but equal. Lets direct our attention to texas where recently a gay male was beat, stabbed, and set on fire while being called "c**k-sucker" "p*ssy a** fa***t" and other derogatory epithets by three men. Should we not have tried to educate these people to prevent horrors like this? Also in an all to predictable move, the state cannot decide if this was a hate crime or not.

That's all well and good, but I don't think that's a good argument for spending a lot of time talking about homosexuality with medical students. What _is_ a good argument is that experience has shown that the medical system has often failed to deliver care effectively to gays. There are a variety of reasons for this. It behooves us as future medical professionals to figure out what those reasons are and how they can be improved, so that we will be able to deliver the best care possible to the greatest number of people.

 

[ppfizenm]

That's all well and good, but I don't think that's a good argument for spending a lot of time talking about homosexuality with medical students. What _is_ a good argument is that experience has shown that the medical system has often failed to deliver care effectively to gays. There are a variety of reasons for this. It behooves us as future medical professionals to figure out what those reasons are and how they can be improved, so that we will be able to deliver the best care possible to the greatest number of people.

I was referencing Nick's argument relating to teaching LGBT culture to youth in schools, however the same argument can be made for med school. As a doctor do you think you won't be a community figure? People will look up to the example you set in and outside of your practice.

Education is needed to prevent incidents like the one I referenced above. We already talk about diversity in schools. Celebrate African American History month. How many of you knew that this past month was Gay history month? An equal amount of recognition would make gigantic in-roads towards ending hate that can and does lead to violence. That is the main problem I have with Nick's argument. Even if both groups are bigots, which I am not conceding, one uses extreme and un-humanly cruel violence against the other.

The sad thing is we really do have an opportunity to end or make this type of event pretty rare but no one wants to be the ones to sit down and make it happen. If we all agreed to even a limited cultural education within a generation you would probably see violence and bullying decrease. Sit down, listen to stories people have to tell, reflect. No one is asking you to watch gay men have sex, adopt an alternative lifestyle, or force beliefs down your throat. Just listen to new perspectives that you cannot, as a heterosexual, have been privy to before.

 

[saveourpens]

I thought the point of URM was to address disparities of representation in medicine due to hardships and other factors that limit qualification. For anyone who watches the news now, they can see growing up coming to terms with your sexual orientation isn't easy. Compiling bullying and self hate together certainly have an effect on academics as they do on participation in extra-curricular activities.

That opens the door for pretty much anything then. At least most "URMs" have lived in the US their entire life and have families here spanning generations. My family and me came to the US with nothing...nothing. I think my family went through far more hardships than some of the "URMs" here. Do I qualify for any special status? No.

 

[ppfizenm]

That opens the door for pretty much anything then. At least most "URMs" have lived in the US their entire life. My family and me came to the US with nothing...nothing. Do I qualify for any special status? No... and no one should.

So just because you had nothing means no one else should get anything? I am unable to have children biologically because I am gay. Does that mean I feel no one should be able to have children? Absolutely not.

 

[saveourpens]

So just because you had nothing means no one else should get anything? I am unable to have children biologically because I am gay. Does that mean I feel no one should be able to have children? Absolutely not.

Sorry, my wording was too strong and I thought I edited it quickly enough. But yes, you're right.

 

[Wolfman89]

That opens the door for pretty much anything then. At least most "URMs" have lived in the US their entire life and have families here spanning generations. My family and me came to the US with nothing...nothing. I think my family went through far more hardships than some of the "URMs" here. Do I qualify for any special status? No.

Well if you are both an immigrant and from a lower socio-economic background, than I personally believe that you should qualify as a URM as both of those segments are underrepresented in medicine.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

Sure, but what happens when we progress from a debate to equal rights (which I agree with you about - that's not a pretty simple debate to have) to a discussion on whether we should include "awareness" and/or "acceptance" campaigns about the LGBT culture in schools? Or, better yet, in medical school curricula? In those situations there definitely isn't a more morally superior position, yet that's inevitably where these sorts of things go.

I totally support full equal rights for all people, the LGBT community included. Where things get more hairy for me is when we shove cultural education and acceptance down everyone's throats. That sort of thing is more of what I was getting at, NOT whether or not individuals should have full equality under the law.

You do realize that we live in a culture that promotes acceptance of racial minorities, that is striving to teach us that women are equal to men, and essentially spreads moral judgements without complaining (until it comes to gays... and then it's just too tabu)?

Why should my children (that Like the guy above will have to be adopted giving my gayness) have to sit and listen that black men, women, and asians are their equals? Why should they be told that they should reproduce (promoted by tax code)? Why should they be forced to be hygienic at school and take showers? Why shouldn't they be taught that abstinence is the moral option (for some reason in Oregon we think that this is correct...)? Why should they have to believe that America is number one, that military personnel are laudable and deserving of healthcare over everyone else, and that guns are awesome?

Just to avoid tarnishing my liberal, accepting reputation, please note that the above statements are not my opinions, they are just to make a point.

What I'm trying to say is that moral systems are created by humans and of humans. In our country's past, we DECIDED that it was not ok to treat blacks as slaves and to not only give them equal rights but to PROMOTE ACCEPTANCE (why do we have affirmative action if not to turn equal rights into equal status?).

What's funny (and NickNaylor, I'm not saying this is you) is that the same people that are against the promotion of gays as equals...cough cough...many republicans.. cough... are promoting the acceptance of the Christian value system and its diffusion throughout our country.

And to finish my rant, I must address this annoying American trait of saying everything is their "right." I have the right to think what I want, I have the right to live outside of the influence of others, I have the right to treat everyone how I want! My god people, no wonder we are socially ******ed compared to other industrialized countries. We don't live in isolated bubbles where only we influence our lives. Can we not learn that there are 300 million other people that share our laws and what we do affects them? Who would think that maybe we should take others into consideration, treat them as equals, and not bitch and moan if they call us out on our actions that go contrary to our professed believes, such action pushing us into cognitive dissonance and our only rebuttal is to say they shouldn't be pushing their beliefs on us.

 

[alexandertg6]

That's all well and good, but I don't think that's a good argument for spending a lot of time talking about homosexuality with medical students. What _is_ a good argument is that experience has shown that the medical system has often failed to deliver care effectively to gays. There are a variety of reasons for this. It behooves us as future medical professionals to figure out what those reasons are and how they can be improved, so that we will be able to deliver the best care possible to the greatest number of people.

Is this an actual assertion or a hypothetical one? Source? It is not intuitively logical to me that gays get sub-par healthcare in today's day and age. I understand some may be more comfortable seeing a gay physician, but anyone who has shadowed extensively knows that people tend to be more or less shameless with their doctors, so I don't quite understand why gays would be marginalized. If they are marginalized, we should do something about it. If not, there won't much use educating med students. Either way I'd like to know.

 

[Wolfman89]

Is this an actual assertion or a hypothetical one? Source? It is not intuitively logical to me that gays get sub-par healthcare in today's day and age. I understand some may be more comfortable seeing a gay physician, but anyone who has shadowed extensively knows that people tend to be more or less shameless with their doctors, so I don't quite understand why gays would be marginalized. If they are marginalized, we should do something about it. If not, there won't much use educating med students. Either way I'd like to know.

I would venture a guess, only a guess mind you, that many members of the LGBTQ community do not feel comfortable opening up to their doctors for a variety of reasons.

 

[HumbleMD]

Is this an actual assertion or a hypothetical one? Source? It is not intuitively logical to me that gays get sub-par healthcare in today's day and age. I understand some may be more comfortable seeing a gay physician, but anyone who has shadowed extensively knows that people tend to be more or less shameless with their doctors, so I don't quite understand why gays would be marginalized. If they are marginalized, we should do something about it. If not, there won't much use educating med students. Either way I'd like to know.

What is true yet "not intuitivelye logical" to you, sir, can fill a 362 page report from the IOM.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13128

PS, intuition has nothing to do with logic.