Patients avoiding gay doctors

[LizzyM]

Why would the same courtesy (if I can call it that) not be extended to patients who don't want to be seen by LGBT health care workers? Many of them are for strong religious beliefs.

As a disclaimer, I agree with you about the protection the law offers to health care workers in both situations. I am just interested in why there is such outrage against the patient requesting "no LGBT" when, from your responses above, you don't seem to have the same level of outrage against the patient requesting "no males." I personally think they are equally wrong-headed (the requests that is, not your opinions 😛 )

There are, in some cultures, often linked to religious practices, a strong prohibition against being viewed or touched by a member of the opposite sex who is not a spouse or blood relative. Some women will not shake hands with a man in a business setting due to their religious/cultural customs. They will do business but they will not shake hands in greeting or leaving. My inlaws had a neighbor who would sit by the pool fully clothed while her children swam but would no more dream of appearing in public in a swim suit than I would dream of walking along the beach topless. These customs of not touching or appearing unveiled are very old traditions, usually practiced by women who have immigrated from a country where this is not only a cultural practice but in some cases enforced by law.

Furthermore, it is generally very easy to identify a person's gender or to know who is or is not a member of your family. Identifying who is "gay" is not possible and specifying that you don't want your care delivered by "a gay" is far easier said than done, if it could/should be done at all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[theseeker4]

There are, in some cultures, often linked to religious practices, a strong prohibition against being viewed or touched by a member of the opposite sex who is not a spouse or blood relative. Some women will not shake hands with a man in a business setting due to their religious/cultural customs. They will do business but they will not shake hands in greeting or leaving. My inlaws had a neighbor who would sit by the pool fully clothed while her children swam but would no more dream of appearing in public in a swim suit than I would dream of walking along the beach topless. These customs of not touching or appearing unveiled are very old traditions, usually practiced by women who have immigrated from a country where this is not only a cultural practice but in some cases enforced by law.

Furthermore, it is generally very easy to identify a person's gender or to know who is or is not a member of your family. Identifying who is "gay" is not possible and specifying that you don't want your care delivered by "a gay" is far easier said than done, if it could/should be done at all.

Sure, I understand all of that. However, in this thread there are multiple people stating that hospitals should essentially show the patient the door if they request "no gay's," whether for cultural/religious reasons or otherwise, based on that request being immoral. I am interested in why the cultural sensitivities and upbringings of one group is honored as a matter of course, while people are up-in-arms about the question of whether another group's cultural sensitivities and upbringings should be honored. Unless one is going to take the position that some religions are more deserving of sensitivity than others, I don't see how the two can be reconciled. And if one will take that position, who do they want to make that judgment?

I of course recognize the difference in the ease of recognizing a member of a certain gender vs. a member of the LGTB community, but that is somewhat of a red herring as there are not many people in this thread arguing "Don't honor the request because it is just too hard to tell who is gay and who isn't. If it was easier to identify them it would be fine to ban them from the patient's room, but because it isn't we shouldn't honor the request." People are arguing "Don't honor the request because it is bigoted and a violation of the health care workers' rights." (a statement I agree with BTW)

 

[LizzyM]

Sure, I understand all of that. However, in this thread there are multiple people stating that hospitals should essentially show the patient the door if they request "no gay's," whether for cultural/religious reasons or otherwise, based on that request being immoral. I am interested in why the cultural sensitivities and upbringings of one group is honored as a matter of course, while people are up-in-arms about the question of whether another group's cultural sensitivities and upbringings should be honored. Unless one is going to take the position that some religions are more deserving of sensitivity than others, I don't see how the two can be reconciled. And if one will take that position, who do they want to make that judgment?

I of course recognize the difference in the ease of recognizing a member of a certain gender vs. a member of the LGTB community, but that is somewhat of a red herring as there are not many people in this thread arguing "Don't honor the request because it is just too hard to tell who is gay and who isn't. If it was easier to identify them it would be fine to ban them from the patient's room, but because it isn't we shouldn't honor the request." People are arguing "Don't honor the request because it is bigoted and a violation of the health care workers' rights." (a statement I agree with BTW)

I know of no religion that prohibits its adherents from any contact of any kind with someone who is LGTB. Do you know of such a religion? Can you direct me to written material that states that as a religious prohibition for members of that faith?

This thread started because some people are wearing a rainbow pin on the job that signals that they support the rights of gays in that workplace. Radical conservatives are disgusted and are encouraging people to refuse to have their children treated by any hospital employee who wears such a pin.

I would be arguing "we will not honor this request because it is impossible to provide high quality care without including all members of the health care team who are on duty here to serve you."

 

[HumbleMD]

Sure, I understand all of that. However, in this thread there are multiple people stating that hospitals should essentially show the patient the door if they request "no gay's," whether for cultural/religious reasons or otherwise, based on that request being immoral. I am interested in why the cultural sensitivities and upbringings of one group is honored as a matter of course, while people are up-in-arms about the question of whether another group's cultural sensitivities and upbringings should be honored. Unless one is going to take the position that some religions are more deserving of sensitivity than others, I don't see how the two can be reconciled. And if one will take that position, who do they want to make that judgment?

I of course recognize the difference in the ease of recognizing a member of a certain gender vs. a member of the LGTB community, but that is somewhat of a red herring as there are not many people in this thread arguing "Don't honor the request because it is just too hard to tell who is gay and who isn't. If it was easier to identify them it would be fine to ban them from the patient's room, but because it isn't we shouldn't honor the request." People are arguing "Don't honor the request because it is bigoted and a violation of the health care workers' rights." (a statement I agree with BTW)

I don't think anyone would "show them the door" but would certainly tell them that their request cannot be honored. There was a case a couple years back where a white patient requested an all-white OR team. Hospital A said no way, and the patient went to Hospital B. Hospital B required the minority staff to stay out (violated their rights), and then faced (and lost) a non-discrimination suit. The minorities in the hospital could have surrendered their rights, butlike many, aren't excited to bend over backwards for white racists, who have historically benefited from racism.

If a hospital required a male physician to stay out of a patient's rooms or OR, they would be in a similarly wrong place. Men, because they historically are at the top of the power differential, are more likely to surrender their right.

Again, you're missing my point about the power differential. We aren't in the business of protecting the will of a group to deny rights of a minority group.

PS, I like your careful thoughts about the issue. I don't know if I'll be changing your mind anytime soon, but think we've exhausted conversation. Probably good to walk away and chew on this for a while.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm not talking about embracing it, and maybe "accepting" was not the correct word to use. But what I'm saying is that theoretically, in a perfect world, a LGBTQ patient would not have to request a LGBTQ or LGBTQ-friendly physician because all doctors should have the cultural competency to not make their patient feel uncomfortable. Physicians, in my opinion, are in a service position; their personal beliefs and opinions should be irrelevant when they are interacting with a patient. In this, my theoretical world, the doctor might be the most homophobic and hate mongering person ever, but when he/she is with a patient, he/she will make said patient feel at ease and comfortable, even if the patient is gay.

And hello, gay culture, just like racism, and the amorality of hate towards both classes can easily be taught though history classes. Just like the history of blacks is riddled with hateful actions being committed towards them by other races, the history of gays is full of the same. How about when students learn about the ancient greeks, they learn how many had women for procreation but men for love (because women were rated lower). How about they talk about the stonewall riots? How about they teach modern events and the increase in suicide rates when people are bullied for being gay?

The history to teach these ideas very much exists.

They could even tie everything in together and talk about the historical struggles of women, blacks, gays, and native americans to receive rights. How they are the same and how they are different. They can then talk about world religions (which was something you suggested be taught to) and how they have historically supported oppression and then talk about how some are breaking free from the mold. Hell, we could even add in lessons on jewish oppression, which continues today, and how the Catholics got Nazis out of Europe to avoid prosecution. All of these lessons, historical and/or moral, could easily be taught.

If there is a will, there is a way. You are negating the second half and the only justification for your comments is a lack of the first.

I want the same hypothetical world that you want.

Again, you're picking easy issues to discuss because there really is little debate on those issues. How comfortable would you feel with your teacher discussing the abortion debate and teaching the "morals" around that history? Or science teachers discussing the use of embryonic stem cells and inserting their moral judgment of the situation?

The problem is that when you start to try and educate "awareness" (something that I think is highly valuable) you run the very high risk of "awareness" teaching turning into indoctrination and preaching. In the college or medical school environment I have little problem with that since, for the most part, people can think critically and come up with their own ideas of things. They can listen to a lecture or read a piece of literature, analyze it, and separate fact from fiction or opinion. In elementary, middle, or even high school, however, students lack that ability and, especially in the lower grades, accept what their teachers say without question. I'm already hesitant about having the state directing education on cultural, religious, whatever topics, but when you mix that with students that can't distinguish between fact and opinion, I'm absolutely against it. I'm not saying this always happens, but rarely do you find people that are capable of talking about a complicated issue with multiple viewpoints (many of them valid) in an unbiased fashion.

By the way, I absolutely didn't suggest that religions be taught in schools. In fact, I don't think they should be. It was just a hypothetical.

 

[45408]

I've provided evidence, and the stance of the AAMC. You've provided opinions (and lay opinions at that). Boy, your lack of understanding evidence-based medicine doesn't bode well for your future in medicine.

Are you going to call him a bad doctor next?

I think you need to revisit the scientific process. The burden of proof is on you to find a case of racial fraud in medical school admissions. Until you do, I'm going to assume it doesn't happen

Why? It's not a relevant comparison.

 

[45408]

If a racist family has a relationship with Dr. Wendy Whitebread and Dr. Johnson is covering in the hospital for Dr. W, is it reasonable for the institutuion to permit the familiy to refuse Dr. Johnson's care and demand a straight white doctor in Dr. Johnson's place?

Yes, of course. Any patient should have the right to refuse the services of any physician. Period.

The hospital should not be under the obligation to find a tall, dark and handsome physician with a good Christian background or anyone else for that matter, but the patient can absolutely refuse to be seen and examined by any given provider. Anything else would be battery.

 

[HumbleMD]

Are you going to call him a bad doctor next?

He's not a doctor. Neither am I. But he's not a member of the "medical community" yet. I don't know what "medical community" you're a part of, but around here we value evidence.

Why? It's not a relevant comparison.

An instance of racial fraud in medical school admissions isn't relevant to the alarmist hypothetical situation of someone falsely identifying as an URM? 😕

Yes, of course. Any patient should have the right to refuse the services of any physician. Period.

The hospital should not be under the obligation to find a tall, dark and handsome physician with a good Christian background or anyone else for that matter, but the patient can absolutely refuse to be seen and examined by any given provider. Anything else would be battery.

I haven't seen anyone calling for a hospital to deny a patient this right. Arguments are being made that hospitals must violate their employees rights in the name of patients demands. I don't think the patient should be shown the door, but they are always allowed to show themselves.

All bets are off, of course, if it becomes a mortal issue.

 

[45408]

Tell that to my 80 year-old grandmother. Or some people who have posted on this thread. Equal treatment under the law covers protections in the workplace. If you believe that LGBT folks should have equal protection under the law, and that includes the workplace, then me being told not to enter a homophobe's room is violating my rights.

If it's your employer telling you not to go in there, it is.

If it's the patient telling you not to go in there, it's not. This whole thread has been about the patient (or their legal surrogate) telling you not to go in there.

And funny someone brings up the male in OB-GYN argument. I happen to be both male, and going into OB-GYN. I 100% agree, that a patient arriving at a teaching hospital and demanding to only be seen by a female doc is a violation of the man's rights and sexual discrimination laws. If a male gynecologist wanted to file a complaint, I think they'd have a case. However, when taking the focus to a patient, if a woman comes in with severe pelvic pain we're ruling out for an ectopic, I'll defer to my 26 years of male privilege and the needs of the patient, and get a female colleague.

No, they would not.

This is not about you, it is about the patient. I'm not usually the one to wave this flag, but it needs to be waved here.

You also don't seem to understand who the discrimination laws apply to and who they don't. They laws are in reference to your employer, not your patient.

It's more commonly an issue among Muslim-American women, but wouldn't modify the situation.

The male OB-GYN position is indeed delicate, but not necessarily an exception to non-discrimination laws. Rights can be surrendered, but not taken. The majority of times male OB-GYNs will surrender their right to sexual non-discrimination in the workplace in the name of patient care (and often the context of acknowledged male privilege). It would be a violation, however, for a hospital or practice group to not hire a male OB-GYN, or demand he not see these patients.

This is correct. It is not a case of you surrendering any rights at all in the other scenario.

It tends to be where the balance of privilege and power lies. Correct, I don't have the same moral outrage in both situations. With proper cultural competency training and understanding, you'll see the difference in the situations:

A patient saying "no gays," from a religious reason (or not, I hate to generalize), is often doing so from a place motivated by an historically empowered majority group of people who have historically harassed and tried to deny the rights of a (currently unprotected) minority group. If I surrendered my rights to not see them, I'd be doing it so that they don't have to feel the "icks" they feel for gay people, and that's not a priority for me.

When a Muslim woman or Conservative Jewish Woman is requesting a male physician, she is often doing so from a place of fear that her husband may find out, and that there will be repercussions at home (physical, emotional, or verbal). Again, as a member of a privileged and empowered group as a male, I'd choose to surrender my rights in this situation.

Motivation, history, and the balance of power are important. This is why each request, though clearly both bad "isms" are not necessarily equally abhorrent to me.

It's not about you.

 

[45408]

He's not a doctor. Neither am I. But he's not a member of the "medical community" yet. I don't know what "medical community" you're a part of, but around here we value evidence.

Cute.

An instance of racial fraud in medical school admissions isn't relevant to the hypothetical situation of someone falsely identifying as an URM? 😕

How exactly does one "prove" their racial background? Their physical appearance at their interview, presumably. Kind of hard to forge. And how would one prove their sexual orientation?

I'm pretty sure that was the point. No one thinks it would be likely, just that it is possible.

 

[Wolfman89]

So do you agree with state schools telling their students to not pick on other kids? (this too is a moral judgement that it's wrong). How about harassing them? (while it's illegal, it started out as a moral judgement that now is enforced). My mother, and educator, makes kids apologize whenever they say "that's so gay" or "that's ******ed." Most of them know me (I help her in class sometimes) and none know I'm gay... until they say "that's gay" and she says "I take personal offense to that, not only are 2 of my sisters gay, but so is my son." Year after year the general response to that is "your son is gay?!?!? but he is so normal and cool!" She says "yeah, gay people aren't all like the stereotype." I guarantee she does a better job dismissing hate and ignorance and disseminating acceptance and knowledge through interactions like this. Should teachers not be allowed to do this?

That's really cool of your mom to do that.

I haven't seen anyone calling for a hospital to deny a patient this right. Arguments are being made that hospitals must violate their employees rights in the name of patients demands. I don't think the patient should be shown the door, but they are always allowed to show themselves.

All bets are off, of course, if it becomes a mortal issue.

I would think in a case of an emergency, 99% of the population would not care who saves their life.

 

[HumbleMD]

If it's your employer telling you not to go in there, it is.

If it's the patient telling you not to go in there, it's not. This whole thread has been about the patient (or their legal surrogate) telling you not to go in there.


No, they would not.

This is not about you, it is about the patient. I'm not usually the one to wave this flag, but it needs to be waved here.

You also don't seem to understand who the discrimination laws apply to and who they don't. They laws are in reference to your employer, not your patient.


This is correct. It is not a case of you surrendering any rights at all in the other scenario.


It's not about you.

Please don't challenge my empathy and compassion. You'll notice I was referencing a concern for my female patients when sacrificing my rights. I'm with you on putting patient care first, but I (and many) don't buy into this old-school paternalistic world where Doc's leave their human rights and humanity at the door.

I (believe) we're on track with what rights are existing in this situation, and what aren't, and are simply misunderstanding eachother.

1) The right of a patient to refuse care (#1 and most important). This does NOT give a patient the right to hand-select which staff members do and do not see or touch them. A hospital does not have to honor their requests, in which case the patient may leave. This right can be surrendered, but not taken away (save select circumstances).

2) Employee non-discrimination rights (which I'd love to point out don't even cover LGBT folks everywhere). A hospital (employer) can't discriminate against nurses, techs, or physicians (employees) in these protected classes. A hospital excluding them from delivering care (at the request of a patient) encroaches on those non-discrimination rights. This right can be surrendered if the protected class chooses, but never denied.

Obviously, a patient can go to a PCP office which happens to have all tall, dark, handsome Christian men (though I'd wonder if it truly happened by chance). All bets are off when they show up in the ER with a broken leg, or for an elective surgery, and start making demands.

 

[Wolfman89]

Obviously, a patient can go to a PCP office which happens to have all tall, dark, handsome Christian men (though I'd wonder if it truly happened by chance). All bets are off when they show up in the ER with a broken leg, or for an elective surgery, and start making demands.

I think that this is pretty fair. In a primary care setting, where a patient-doctor relationship is paramount to quality patient care, a patient needs to be seen by a doctor they can empathize with so that they can build a relationship built on trust.

 

[NickNaylor]

Please don't challenge my empathy and compassion. You'll notice I was referencing a concern for my female patients when sacrificing my rights. I'm with you on putting patient care first, but I (and many) don't buy into this old-school paternalistic world where Doc's leave their human rights and humanity at the door.

I (believe) we're on track with what rights are existing in this situation, and what aren't, and are simply misunderstanding eachother.

1) The right of a patient to refuse care (#1 and most important). This does NOT give a patient the right to hand-select which staff members do and do not see or touch them. A hospital does not have to honor their requests, in which case the patient may leave. This right can be surrendered, but not taken away (save select circumstances).

2) Employee non-discrimination rights (which I'd love to point out don't even cover LGBT folks everywhere). A hospital (employer) can't discriminate against nurses, techs, or physicians (employees) in these protected classes. A hospital excluding them from delivering care (at the request of a patient) encroaches on those non-discrimination rights. This right can be surrendered if the protected class chooses, but never denied.

Obviously, a patient can go to a PCP office which happens to have all tall, dark, handsome Christian men (though I'd wonder if it truly happened by chance). All bets are off when they show up in the ER with a broken leg, or for an elective surgery, and start making demands.

I don't think anyone is arguing or disagreeing with that point. I think the right to request a different physician is relevant only in all non-emergent situations (regardless of whether they happen at a hospital or private physician's office).

I'm not sure how you can reconcile #1 and #2. How does a patient request that he/she receive a different physician (#1) when the hospital seemingly can't fulfill that request (#2) since to do so would (according to you) be discrimination on the part of the hospital? I must be missing something.

 

[wackawacka]

Oh look, radical conservative Christian groups hate gays. What a surprise.

So true, lol.

If you are a gay doctor, it could be very profitable to be in a community where there are lots of gays = lots of money.

I have a friend who gay and does well with gay patients.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

I want the same hypothetical world that you want.

Again, you're picking easy issues to discuss because there really is little debate on those issues. How comfortable would you feel with your teacher discussing the abortion debate and teaching the "morals" around that history? Or science teachers discussing the use of embryonic stem cells and inserting their moral judgment of the situation?

The problem is that when you start to try and educate "awareness" (something that I think is highly valuable) you run the very high risk of "awareness" teaching turning into indoctrination and preaching. In the college or medical school environment I have little problem with that since, for the most part, people can think critically and come up with their own ideas of things. They can listen to a lecture or read a piece of literature, analyze it, and separate fact from fiction or opinion. In elementary, middle, or even high school, however, students lack that ability and, especially in the lower grades, accept what their teachers say without question. I'm already hesitant about having the state directing education on cultural, religious, whatever topics, but when you mix that with students that can't distinguish between fact and opinion, I'm absolutely against it. I'm not saying this always happens, but rarely do you find people that are capable of talking about a complicated issue with multiple viewpoints (many of them valid) in an unbiased fashion.

By the way, I absolutely didn't suggest that religions be taught in schools. In fact, I don't think they should be. It was just a hypothetical.

Well, I would like to see an elementary school class that talks about embryonic stem cells 🙂

When they do get brought up in high school bio, why shouldn't the controversy behind them be brought up and addressed?

And abortion being taught before sex ed just doesn't happen. However, it is a very real reality for sexually active students (which happens now starting sometimes in middle school... my mom told me last night that she has a pregnant freshman, my cousin in 8th grade went to school with a father of 2). Why shouldn't they learn the controversy of abortion, the pros and cons, etc.?

I do think it's hard to pass value judgements on these though because they are so hotly debated. That being said, they need to not say "abortion is wrong" or "embryonic stem cells are murder." They can simply present both sides.

I think we underestimate the youth of today.

Andy why shouldn't religion be taught in schools? I'm not talking spreading religion, I'm talking an honest-to-god (get the pun? 🙂 ) class that explains the major religious movements of human history, the good and evil that has been done through them, and atempts to correlate it wtih history and modern day situations. If people learned about how Islam affected the Middle East, maybe they wouldn't jump to the conclusion that all Arabs are terrorists. Or what if they learned about how Hindu and Buddhism changed their worlds? Or even that the American colonies started as a way to avoid religious persecution?

Given the large number of individuals that subscribe to religion, it would help to give a knowledge base to students so they can understand each other and the world we live in.

...I also think that nutrition and cooking, physical education, relationship psychology, taxes and financials, and other practical classes should be mandatory...

 

[HumbleMD]

I don't think anyone is arguing or disagreeing with that point. I think the right to request a different physician is relevant only in all non-emergent situations (regardless of whether they happen at a hospital or private physician's office).

I'm not sure how you can reconcile #1 and #2. How does a patient request that he/she receive a different physician (#1) when the hospital seemingly can't fulfill that request (#2) since to do so would (according to you) be discrimination on the part of the hospital? I must be missing something.

These are not mutually exclusive at all.

A hospital can't demand their (insert class here) employees not deliver care to a patient (violating employee's #2). The patient making that demand can sit in their hospital bed and either receive partial or no care, or exercise right #1 and leave. Making demands and refusing care (or leaving) are 2 different actions.


Seriously, this exact scenario was played out in the courts a couple years back, and most bioethicists agree with the position as well.

 

[Wolfman89]

...I also think that nutrition and cooking, physical education, relationship psychology, taxes and financials, and other practical classes should be mandatory...

Good Heavens! You mean practical classes that teach life skills instead of just telling kids how special they are?!?! 😱 🙄

But what about their precious self-esteem? What if they fail or make a mistake? Won't we cripple them for life? 🙄

 

[fox7163]

A doctors sexuality should have no buisnes in the profesional setting reguardless. There is a time and place for everything and flaunting homosexuality is for after your rotation and out of the office, thats just my opinion.

 

[Wolfman89]

A doctors sexuality should have no buisnes in the profesional setting reguardless. There is a time and place for everything and flaunting homosexuality is for after your rotation and out of the office, thats just my opinion.

A doctor that wear's a rainbow pin to "flaunt [their] homosexuality" is no more flaunting it than a doctor who wears a cross is flaunting their Christianity.


Also use spell checker if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[45408]

Please don't challenge my empathy and compassion.

I'm not. I'm telling you that the patient's rights and wishes supersede ours in this matter.

1) The right of a patient to refuse care (#1 and most important). This does NOT give a patient the right to hand-select which staff members do and do not see or touch them. A hospital does not have to honor their requests, in which case the patient may leave. This right can be surrendered, but not taken away (save select circumstances).

They do have the right to hand-select which staff members touch them. Anything less would be considered battery, and potentially assault. The hospital doesn't have to accommodate them by finding anyone else though.

 

[45408]

I'm not sure how you can reconcile #1 and #2. How does a patient request that he/she receive a different physician (#1) when the hospital seemingly can't fulfill that request (#2) since to do so would (according to you) be discrimination on the part of the hospital? I must be missing something.

In an emergent setting, the patient refuse to see someone, and they can ask for someone else. Nobody is promising that there will be anyone else. Any physician should offer to make at least a token gesture at finding someone else or suggesting another place (e.g., in the middle of the night, if my pt said they didn't want me because I was too white/young/whatever, I can suggest another hospital, but I wouldn't call my partners in).

These are not mutually exclusive at all.

A hospital can't demand their (insert class here) employees not deliver care to a patient (violating employee's #2). The patient making that demand can sit in their hospital bed and either receive partial or no care, or exercise right #1 and leave. Making demands and refusing care (or leaving) are 2 different actions.

This.

 

[theseeker4]

I know of no religion that prohibits its adherents from any contact of any kind with someone who is LGTB. Do you know of such a religion? Can you direct me to written material that states that as a religious prohibition for members of that faith?

So are we limiting "legitimate" religious objections to those written in holy books of generally accepted faiths? I know of no religious group, as a whole, that bans contact with LGTB individuals either. However, does that mean we say to someone "We normally honor religious preferences, but we don't think your beliefs are part of a legitimate religion, so you are SOL"? Who is in charge, if that is the case, in deciding what religions are legitimate and what are not?

I may be wrong here, as I am not an expert in Islam by any means, but are there not many mainstream Islamic sects that consider medical care a legitimate exception to the "no contact with a male" rule (for lack of a better term)? If so, how are the teachings by one or even many sects of Islam that prohibit such contact, even in a medical setting, different from factions of a church in rural America teaching that knowing and willful contact with homosexuals is itself condoning the lifestyle and therefore immoral?

Unless you are going to appoint yourself to a position of judging what religious beliefs are legitimate and deserving of protection, a position I certainly don't want to claim, I still don't see how you can find accommodating one acceptable and even noble, and the other bigoted and reprehensible.

I suppose you could decide to limit it to "official" written material, but I am not sure certain Native American, among others, would appreciate that 😉. And of course you run into the problem of what written materials, exactly, one considers legitimate. I don't have any on hand, but I would bet money you could find some pastor's written diatribe against accepting homosexuals and homosexuality printed up somewhere.........

 

[LizzyM]

So are we limiting "legitimate" religious objections to those written in holy books of generally accepted faiths?......

That's not what I was saying... I was just asking if there are known, documented, objections of a religious/cultural nature that prohibit any contact of any kind with LGBT individuals. We know that there are cultural/religious groups that prohibit physical contact between men and women and if it is at all possible, hospitals will attempt to respect the desires of female patients who do not want to be seen by men. I think that many of us can empathize with the needs of women who are in need of medical care and who will not accept care delivered by men if it can be avoided.

 

[10Acious]

Yes, of course. Any patient should have the right to refuse the services of any physician. Period.

The hospital should not be under the obligation to find a tall, dark and handsome physician with a good Christian background or anyone else for that matter, but the patient can absolutely refuse to be seen and examined
by any given provider. Anything else would be battery.

The hospital is not hotel. The hospital does NOT and should NOT honor requests to "pre-filter" the physicians treating the patients especially on criteria based on orientation, race etc. The patient however CAN refuse treatment or examination from a physician once they have met them or determined something about them. There is a difference. The patient can be a bigot if they want to, but the hospital institution cannot and should not.

 

[theseeker4]

That's not what I was saying... I was just asking if there are known, documented, objections of a religious/cultural nature that prohibit any contact of any kind with LGBT individuals. We know that there are cultural/religious groups that prohibit physical contact between men and women and if it is at all possible, hospitals will attempt to respect the desires of female patients who do not want to be seen by men. I think that many of us can empathize with the needs of women who are in need of medical care and who will not accept care delivered by men if it can be avoided.

I guess I just keep coming back to the question; why do we consider it good and right to empathize with these women and not with those who are morally opposed to homosexuality?

Personally, I consider both requests wrong-headed. I also think that both requests should be honored as far as they can be if not doing so would seriously compromise patient care. How would one honor the "No LGBT" request? I have no clue, but it is no less worthy of attempting to honor than the "No men" request.

 

[45408]

The hospital is not hotel. The hospital does NOT and should NOT honor requests to "pre-filter" the physicians treating the patients especially on criteria based on orientation, race etc. The patient however CAN refuse treatment or examination from a physician once they have met them or determined something about them. There is a difference. The patient can be a bigot if they want to, but the hospital institution cannot and should not.

Yeah, I know.

 

[HumbleMD]

I guess I just keep coming back to the question; why do we consider it good and right to empathize with these women and not with those who are morally opposed to homosexuality?

Personally, I consider both requests wrong-headed. I also think that both requests should be honored as far as they can be if not doing so would seriously compromise patient care. How would one honor the "No LGBT" request? I have no clue, but it is no less worthy of attempting to honor than the "No men" request.

This is where you have to have a "gut-check" moment. From a logic or philosophic perspective, you are correct. In our society, however, we don't view all viewpoints as equally valid. Nobody wants the thought police, but through progressive legal action we have assured that a white supremecist can't oppress minorities in the workplace. Are we okay with Native Americans promoting their culture? Yes. Double standard? Probably. Acceptable by most people? Yep.

 

[theseeker4]

This is where you have to have a "gut-check" moment. From a logic or philosophic perspective, you are correct. In our society, however, we don't view all viewpoints as equally valid. Nobody wants the thought police, but through progressive legal action we have assured that a white supremecist can't oppress minorities in the workplace. Are we okay with Native Americans promoting their culture? Yes. Double standard? Probably. Acceptable by most people? Yep.

My problem with that is that you cannot apply laws, or have the government involved in any way, with picking and choosing what is protected without the very real and very strong risk of a thought police. We see that already with children being expelled from schools due to "zero tolerance" policies toward weapons because they draw a picture about going hunting with dad and the picture includes a gun. This discussion is well off the original topic, however, so I will avoid going into it any deeper to avoid more of a thread derail. 😛

 

[HumbleMD]

My problem with that is that you cannot apply laws, or have the government involved in any way, with picking and choosing what is protected without the very real and very strong risk of a thought police. We see that already with children being expelled from schools due to "zero tolerance" policies toward weapons because they draw a picture about going hunting with dad and the picture includes a gun. This discussion is well off the original topic, however, so I will avoid going into it any deeper to avoid more of a thread derail. 😛

This is what democracy is for.

 

[PTPoeny]

I guess I just keep coming back to the question; why do we consider it good and right to empathize with these women and not with those who are morally opposed to homosexuality?

Personally, I consider both requests wrong-headed. I also think that both requests should be honored as far as they can be if not doing so would seriously compromise patient care. How would one honor the "No LGBT" request? I have no clue, but it is no less worthy of attempting to honor than the "No men" request.

One thing to note, I have never heard of a patient requesting that no males enter their room. The letter posted in the OP is very specifically addressing the issue of gay hospital employees and specifically mentions techs and other hospital personnel. All patients have a right to choose who touches them. They don't have a right to decide who delivers their meals.

The other part of the "No LGBT" request is that it would require all employees of the hospital to declare their sexual orientation* - otherwise how would anyone know who was allowed to go into such a room. Would a patient be able to sue if someone was treating them while closeted and later came out? Would each hospital have their own definition of LGBT? Especially for the bisexual category, does kissing someone of the same sex once during college count? What if you enjoy meaningless sex with both genders but only form relationships with one? What if you find members of the same sex attractive and think you might be bi but have never done anything about it because you found your opposite sex spouse at a young age? What if you identify as straight but regularly have sex with members of the same sex? Would each patient making the request be able to define LGBT individually?

Human sexuality is more complex for most people than gender. The logistics of the two different requests "I don't want a male touching me" vs "I don't want an LGBT person in my kid's room" are very different.

*I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for employers to ask this in some states - which makes honoring this type of request logistically impossible in those states.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

One thing to note, I have never heard of a patient requesting that no males enter their room. The letter posted in the OP is very specifically addressing the issue of gay hospital employees and specifically mentions techs and other hospital personnel. All patients have a right to choose who touches them. They don't have a right to decide who delivers their meals.

The other part of the "No LGBT" request is that it would require all employees of the hospital to declare their sexual orientation* - otherwise how would anyone know who was allowed to go into such a room. Would a patient be able to sue if someone was treating them while closeted and later came out? Would each hospital have their own definition of LGBT? Especially for the bisexual category, does kissing someone of the same sex once during college count? What if you enjoy meaningless sex with both genders but only form relationships with one? What if you find members of the same sex attractive and think you might be bi but have never done anything about it because you found your opposite sex spouse at a young age? What if you identify as straight but regularly have sex with members of the same sex? Would each patient making the request be able to define LGBT individually?

Human sexuality is more complex for most people than gender. The logistics of the two different requests "I don't want a male touching me" vs "I don't want an LGBT person in my kid's room" are very different.

*I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for employers to ask this in some states - which makes honoring this type of request logistically impossible in those states.

This is getting me thinking.... and it's a new thought but it deals with this "micromanaging of rights" that Americans do... when people go to the hospital, do they really have a right to dictate who does what for them or do they simply have a right to receive adequate healthcare (or whatever is promised to them)? With the issue at hand and presented by the OP, I really see it as a restricting service vs. requesting something. And when it comes to the restrictive, I don't think the hospital telling them no is a bad thing or an infringement of this elusive "right to dictate how a hospital work."

As for the religious scenarios, I would agree that picking and choosing which religions to respect is ridiculous. While some have been around longer, there is nothing inherently more correct in one religion than in another. In fact, personal belief systems would be on the same level in my mind. I would be ok with a patient requesting a female or male doctor but being told "if there is one that is free on service then we will try to honor that request" and if they end up being assigned the opposite sex, well then their right is to get up, leave, and find a different doctor at a different place.

Similar analogy in my mind: I'm a vegetarian. I go to a restaurant and look at the menu (the services provided by the establishment). I have the right to choose from the menu. Now, if I want option A but made vegetarian, I can request it (also a right) but the establishment, IMO, can say "i'm sorry, we don't do that." And again, I have the right to leave, never go back, and find someplace that makes a vegetarian option A. I, however, do not have a right to demand a vegetarian option A from a place that doesn't do that.

The patients can be prejudiced all they want and make as many outrageous requests as they want, but ultimately the hospital should have the right to say, "no."

 

[LizzyM]

The faculity can say no and people can go elsewhere. Get a reputation for not being sensitive to reasonable requests and you may find that you have lost market share.

Sometimes it is not what you have a right to receive or expect but what a provider will do (within reason) to keep the customers satisfied.

 

[NickNaylor]

This is what democracy is for.

Really? So we're going to vote for representatives to determine which ideas, cultures, whatever are protected? How is this not the thought police?

 

[HumbleMD]

Really? So we're going to vote for representatives to determine which ideas, cultures, whatever are protected? How is this not the thought police?

Umm, yes? This is really news to you? Welcome to the USA.

You're free to think what you want. There are plenty of laws that dictate how you may or may not act on them. It used to be fine to hire only whites. Now it's not. You can still be a white sepremacist, you just can't act on it through hiring practices in the workplace, thanks to progressive policies enacted through our democracy.

 

[Wolfman89]

*I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for employers to ask this in some states - which makes honoring this type of request logistically impossible in those states.

I think that this might be a compromise. One's sexual orientation should be treated like one's religion, private, but it can be made public if one wants too make it so.

 

[centrigeugle]

I'm really perplexed that there are any points of view other than TheProwler's (and anybody else who might also be espousing a similar message.)

It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not, the patient's preferences trump all. If their belief system is strict enough that they will follow it to the extend that they will deny themselves medical care, then more power to them (honestly.) Refuse away, and I hope there's somebody else you like better/that you don't die. But it's their right. Full stop.

Or so I came in here to post, and so I thought, but then I read this:

All patients have a right to choose who touches them. They don't have a right to decide who delivers their meals.

and it brought up some really interesting thoughts. Where, indeed, do we draw the line at patient preferences? Certainly one would have the right to refuse care from, say, a gay nurse who would otherwise be giving you an injection. But how about the housekeeper who changes the sheets? How about the nutrition staff?

At first glimpse it seems fairly clear what is care and what isn't: sanitizing your table isn't care, sawing open your chest is. But there's a huge range of grey in between that's actually made me stop and think seriously about this question. Staff like, say, radiology techs or lab personnel don't really have extensive direct contact with patients, yet they are unarguably involved, if only by proxy, with their medical treatment. What if somebody's just injecting a drug into your IV line - can you legally refuse there? How about the tech growing cultures from your blood?

The easy answer is, of course, "well they can always just refuse when it gets to something they're uncomfortable with" but that seems like kind of a cop-out to me. The post-op recovering from invasive surgery can't just be kicked out onto the street if he/she insists somebody can't hang their IV bag because of <reason>, but neither should hospitals be obligated to provide a full spectrum of staff at every level. We can't just...not change their sheets.

Or can we?

Hmm.

 

[Prohok]

I love the LGBTQ and their community. All 3 of my brothers are gay and so is my uncle (can it really be genetics 😕?)

I used to work at a rehab facility and I've seen an incident where the wound physician was a flamboyant gay male and I believe the patient felt uncomfortable and requested to see another doctor (I cleaned up the words).

It sad some people stereotype LGBTQ people as being sinners or molesters. And I'm sure they have more ideas.

 

[eli20]

Rely on Churches and Home life to teach cultural competency? These are the exactly places where a lot of people are taught to hate in the first place...