here's a thought.

If the justification for an all female staff is that a female patient should feel comfortable, does that mean I should be able to go into a publicly funded medical facility and demand that the doctor seeing me be the same race or ethnicity as me? Same religion?

A Professor of mine told us that in the hospital where he works they made a study about mammography. (Both male and female doctors are 'allowed' in Germany.) They asked patients how satisfied they were with the treatment, how painful it was and also the bruises they had.
It turned out that women with male doctors were happier, had less pain and less bruises. Female doctors were rougher and the patience had more bruises.
Think what you want about that

I think there should be a choice (in both public and private). I don't think more on "women feel more comfortable" but on an individual basis. Some people have reservations of being treated by another sex (regardless if the reason is baseless or not). I do agree with you that they shouldn't bar men, but the patient should also be given a choice. Personally I don't really mind either way. Also certain sexed doctors may be required for religious reasons, trauma, etc. Now obviously it shouldn't matter who does it but our society doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Senan wrote:

If the justification for an all female staff is that a female patient should feel comfortable, does that mean I should be able to go into a publicly funded medical facility and demand that the doctor seeing me be the same race or ethnicity as me? Same religion?

I don't think its the same thing? Sex is a biological thing while race is socially constructed. Also sex has a "gender" construct on top of it (Girls like pink Boys like blue nonsense), which I think is another problem to add to the mix.

Firstly,

I absolutely agree with the principal of what you are saying.

Just a couple things.

There has to date not been a single study that has confirmed the link between bras and breast cancer. The theory is that the bras constricted lymphatic flow which created a slowing of detoxification from breast tissue. Subsequent studies and biopsies on tumors and breast tissue has found no link.

Breast cancer has also been proven to be either genetic due to the presence and expression of the BRCA1 and 2 (if memory serves this accounts for around than 5% of cases) or caused by lifestyle.

There is a well documented evidence to support the fact that your risk factor for breast cancer is related to lifestyle, including obesity and alcohol consumption due to the fact that the most common type of breast cancer cells are generally highly estrogen receptive , So anything that raises your levels of estrogen, including some medications and foods are going to up your risk.

The argument that there is more breast cancer from when bras were worn is an anecdotal theory that fails to take into consideration that massive lifestyle changes that have occurred within the same time frame that have been proven to have a link.

“Female breast cancer is by far (unfairly so) the best financed field in oncology and there are obviously many opportunities for research funding.”

Yes. Good marketing sadly. And in my opinion is a waste of money as we should be dealing with the causes, not the symptoms. (yes, I think cancer in general is a symptom of a bigger problem)


You make some really good points over all. And for the most part I agree with the principal of what youre saying, but from a different perspective.

In 2010 I was involved in helping to roll out a project with the NZ Breast cancer foundation. While survival rates in NZ are typically good, there was a massive discrepancy with the survival rates of Pacific island and Maori women. The were typically diagnosed much later, presented with far more established symptoms and were less likely to undergo treatment. They also have a higher rate of the more aggressive forms.

Naturally this was frustrating because the Foundation put a LOT of money and years of effort into funding a mobile screening unit which was free and also ensured that women in smaller communities had access to screening. As part of the project we introduced a patient advocate. A woman who was not only Maori, but spoke Te Reo and had also had cancer herself. She went out into the community a few weeks prior to the screening unit armed with pamphlets and information hoping to encourage people ahead of time. What she found is that the lack of screening and treatment was actually NOT being driven by the women themselves. Both cultures are very traditional, patriarchal and religious. It turned out that it was considered an insulting and inappropriate for a woman to be seen or touched by a man other than her husband and that included doctors. Its an ingrained cultural belief.

The first thing we did was assign only the female staff available to the screening unit. Screening, diagnosis and treatment rates went up almost instantly. It was insane.

Next we launched community projects to help facilitate better understanding about the realities of breast cancer and its treatments, including the need for non gender bias when it came to medical staff, and in the last 4 years the need to have female only staff in the screening units has dissipated.

Yes, I agree with you that it is not equality to have women only wards. But you don’t change people’s minds and cultural beliefs by saying it’s not fair and I don’t understand why this is a problem for you because it’s not a problem for me. Your justification for your arguments is “my observations” “my opinion” “MY taxes” (because what, women who access these services don’t pay taxes and YOURS are the only taxes being used to fund this lunacy of people feeling comfortable while undergoing intensive, painful and traumatic treatment for something that may kill them?” :silly: .

Instead of being offended by the choices people make on how they want their bodies and experiences of treatment handled because of YOUR observations and YOUR opinions, perhaps you should try considering it from a wider perspective, and trying to understand why they feel that way. Maybe consider it from their perspective and try to understand why they dont agree with you, and you might just discover a way to change it.

ren wrote: To be honest, I don't think the choice should be there considering it's a public service. Choice is what you can get in the private sector. Personal preferences = personal payment.

Well, I can't speak necessarily for Jestor, but as an American, I pay for my healthcare. The gov't doesn't. So if that were the case here, and I had no choice, I'd throw a hissy fit the likes of which hasn't been seen in a while.
[hr]

Edan wrote: For me it's a male/female situation... because for me it's nothing to do with 'attraction'.

Would you care to elaborate on why? Is it a morality issue? Is it a heterogenous issue (i.e., because the sexes are different)? Is it because of perspective? Or sexism? What could be a good reason behind treating two human beings, both interested in your healthcare, differently? What could cause one to make you feel comfortable and another the opposite?

I have similar issues when it comes to certain professions and services, but I know what my reasons are and why they exist. I wonder if others do?
[hr]

Brenna wrote: “Female breast cancer is by far (unfairly so) the best financed field in oncology and there are obviously many opportunities for research funding.”

Yes. Good marketing sadly.

Everybody loves boobies.

I'm usually against discrimination, for any reason, but I make an exception in this case. If the thought of having her breasts examined by a man puts a woman off then she may not have the procedure. This might cost her life. Discrimination is ok (I think) if it saves lives.

Ecthalion wrote: I'm usually against discrimination, for any reason, but I make an exception in this case. If the thought of having her breasts examined by a man puts a woman off then she may not have the procedure. This might cost her life. Discrimination is ok (I think) if it saves lives.

I'm all on-board with "whatever saves lives", but I think it's important for that woman to understand why she feels that way.

A friend of mine hates male doctors. They don't just make her uncomfortable, she'll physically strike them if they so much as give a routine examination. And I'm sure she has very valid reasons for that discomfort that only she knows. But, in this area, at the hospital she was to give birth, she didn't have a lot of choice. There were only a few doctors on staff for that, and all of them were male.

So she planned a home birth. Anything to get away from that discomfort, right? Surely it'd be fine and safe. At the last minute, she found some statutes that suggested if she didn't go through with a hospital birth it could open a can of worms (legally and medically) that would be impossible to ignore. And a male doctor saved her life when she nearly bled out. Something that (very likely) would've been fatal at the all-female homebirth she had planned, given that she lived in the boondocks.

Could a female doctor have saved her just as easily? Yes. But she didn't have that option. There are reasons for the way we feel about situations like this, and if we don't understand what they are, we could needlessly hurt ourselves. Nobody has to change their minds, just be aware of why you feel the way you feel.

After all, doctors--no matter their genetalia--are only trying to help you and keep you healthy.

.

Rickie The Grey wrote: That's an interesting thought. Would I feel the same if my Dr and surgen were gay men?

If something went wrong and you needed blood and the only available was from the operating gay surgeon (or gay anyone), then it'd be illegal for them to give you that blood. Not sure if it's because it might make you gay too, or give you aids. The UK's got some really shit laws lol

Adhara wrote: A Professor of mine told us that in the hospital where he works they made a study about mammography. (Both male and female doctors are 'allowed' in Germany.) They asked patients how satisfied they were with the treatment, how painful it was and also the bruises they had.
It turned out that women with male doctors were happier, had less pain and less bruises. Female doctors were rougher and the patience had more bruises.
Think what you want about that

Do you have a link or something I could use? I'd like to forward this to the equality commission.

I don't think its the same thing? Sex is a biological thing while race is socially constructed. Also sex has a "gender" construct on top of it (Girls like pink Boys like blue nonsense), which I think is another problem to add to the mix.

Race is a very biological thing I'm afarid. It's the new feminist definition of "gender" that says it is constructed. Personally I also think that we have more sex-based social attitudes than we have racial ones.... Then again there seems to be some sort whole "black culture" and misappropriation of culture thing goinmg on around some circles... Personally I don't really care when black people wear "white people" clothes (rofl), I'm white european, the wife is black african, and we both think it's all a load of bollocks.
funny trivia: Before pink was marketed for girls (an now women) it was a boy colour. It was seen as softer (for babies) than red (blood/men). Girls would be dressed in blue, seen as a proper soft colour. If you add certain biological facts to the equation it makes the whole thing even more hilarious. I think the current reason behind all the "pink" marketing efforts is to create a false sense of girl power whilst making sure parents have to pay again for what the bigger brother already had and stopped using.

There has to date not been a single study that has confirmed the link between bras and breast cancer. The theory is that the bras constricted lymphatic flow which created a slowing of detoxification from breast tissue. Subsequent studies and biopsies on tumors and breast tissue has found no link.

Breast cancer has also been proven to be either genetic due to the presence and expression of the BRCA1 and 2 (if memory serves this accounts for around than 5% of cases) or caused by lifestyle.

There is a well documented evidence to support the fact that your risk factor for breast cancer is related to lifestyle, including obesity and alcohol consumption due to the fact that the most common type of breast cancer cells are generally highly estrogen receptive , So anything that raises your levels of estrogen, including some medications and foods are going to up your risk.

The argument that there is more breast cancer from when bras were worn is an anecdotal theory that fails to take into consideration that massive lifestyle changes that have occurred within the same time frame that have been proven to have a link.

Oh yes, I know. research for this just would take so long. But the principle remains the same. Having parts of your body constantly squeezed IS bad for health. For example we know for men that wearing briefs is bad for health... And briefs are nowehere near as tight (and hard) as bras.

What I am referring to are statistics, which of course don't show the whole picture, but still are relevant. If you look at the tobacco consumption and lung cancer statistics, there is an obvious rise in tobacco use, reflected 20 years later by an equal rise in lung cancer cases.
So, once again, for bras it's only speculation, but a common sense assumption to make that maybe the reason why this particular part of your body is at incredibly high risk, compared to people who have breasts yet do not wear bras (men) and people who had breasts yet did not wear bras (ancestors), is that you wear bras. A tight, hard, fashion item. Definitely worth investigating imo.

(because what, women who access these services don’t pay taxes and YOURS are the only taxes being used to fund this lunacy of people feeling comfortable while undergoing intensive, painful and traumatic treatment for something that may kill them?” :silly: .

Well actually, kinda, yes. In this country I am required (by law) to work more years than women, and therefore contribute more tax before being able to get a pension. Next to that, medical spending on women is I think about 2.5 times more than on men (I'll have to get back to you on that though, this sort of statistics is usually kept well hidden, I'll have to make freedom of information requests)

Instead of being offended by the choices people make on how they want their bodies and experiences of treatment handled because of YOUR observations and YOUR opinions, perhaps you should try considering it from a wider perspective, and trying to understand why they feel that way. Maybe consider it from their perspective and try to understand why they dont agree with you, and you might just discover a way to change it.

So, next time I see a female doctor I can just say "listen, I just don't like female doctors", and then she should either consider a new career or a sex change? Seems rather extreme.

Overall Brenna you make a good point about culture. In cultures where men and women are not equal and not expected to respect each other it seems quite natural that they do not mix. But in our culture, the opposite is true, meaning it really has no place here.

ren wrote: Do you have a link or something I could use? I'd like to forward this to the equality commission.

I'd have to ask my Professor if they still have any data from the study. It sounded more like a hospital intern thing, nothing official (and it would be in German). I'll see if I can find out something.