Re: men and sections
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Sun Nov 5 17:30:11 2000
what about competence???
art
At Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Efrain Ramirez wrote:
>
>I age also inluded?
>
>At Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Braun, R. Daniel wrote:
>>
>> FYI:
>>In a public hospital, it is illegal for someone to request a physician based
>>on sex, exactly the same way it is illegal to request a physician based on
>>race.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steven CrawfordTo: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>>Sent: 11/4/00 8:17 PM
>>Subject: Re: men and sections
>>
>>Dr. McIntosh,
>>
>>Yes, I find the statement aforementioned to be "sexist, pandering, and
>>insulting." And ignorant. I once had a patient (female) tell me that
>>she wanted to see my female colleague because the female physician could
>>better understand her hot flashes. "OK," I said, "she will
>>probably understand them better than me." She is all of 28 years old!
>>Who better to understand your hot flashes!!!!"
>>
>>But, we are males. And, at least in OB/GYN, males are permitted to be
>>discriminated against. There is no use of anyone out there refuting me,
>>as I can list many examples of job opportunity advertisements requesting
>>only that a female OB/GYN respond to a particular job offer.
>>Many other sexist remarks, etc., are allowed to be made against male
>>physicians today.
>>
>>Now, many women have that stated that discrimination against male
>>OB/GYN's is "justified" by saying that females have been discriminated
>>against for years and years. My response to that is, 'does that make
>>it legitimate, ethical and just plain "the right thing to do" since
>>males have been the "traditional" physicians in the past?' I think
>>not.. I furthermore feel that if women feel that way, then that is a
>>sad statement for women. I hope that women, in general, do not feel
>>that it is "OK" to discriminate in any way. Women, as a lobbying
>>group, sure do openly oppose discrimination against women. Why should
>>they "support" discrimination against men?
>>
>>In exploring the theory that "women desire women physicians," I find
>>that statement naive, ridiculous and again just plain wrong. Many
>>female patients, including colleague female physicians, have told me on
>>many an occasion that they have experienced female physicians' pelvic
>>exams, etc., and would never see a female physician again. Just because
>>one is female does not mean that she is better capable of rendering
>>female health care or that she will better understand a female's pelvic
>>pain, etc. I have seen female physicians be very blunt and
>>unsympathetic towards women. I have trained with several women
>>physicians who were not empathetic. Likewise, I have trained with
>>unsympathetic male physicians.
>>
>>In conclusion, I again must say that I am saddened to see that society
>>has allowed, even encouraged, discrimination against men. I am saddened
>>IF women do not see this as wrong. I am disenchanted with the
>>acceptance of this practice in advertising, hiring and everyday life
>>(i.e.. excluding males in parenting). I feel that if a group, be it
>>women, minorities, etc., has lobbied against discrimination based on
>>sex, race, etc., and then turn around and embrace the very practice
>>they say they abhor, I see their group(s) as losing face and
>>hypocritical beyond reproach.
>>
>>As I have stated before, a particular sex, race, etc., matters NOT when
>>evaluating a physician's performance and effectiveness in treating
>>patients. It matters that the physician is empathetic, sympathetic,
>>caring, and has ONLY the welfare of the patient at hand.
>>Discrimination against men in OB/GYN is wrong; it is heart wrenching and
>>sickening. Discrimination against anyone is a display of a weak attempt
>>to hold one down based on superficial qualities. I hope that someday
>>all groups, NOT just men, will see that discriminating against
>>another sex or race is an act of contempt, a weak display of undeserving
>>power.
>>
>>Steve Crawford, MD
>>
>>"J. Hellriegel" wrote:
>>
>>> At Fri, 3 Nov 2000, William D. McIntosh, MD wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Female physicians may be less likely to use C-sections because ``they
>>have a better innate understanding of the female body and its physical
>>processes such as child birth..."
>>> >
>>> --
>>> "according to Dr. Sarah M. Horwitz of Yale University in New Haven,
>>> Connecticut and colleagues."
>>>
>>> Do you think that Sarah's gender may have influenced her statement?
>>>
>>> J. Hellriegel
>>> --
>>> >Does anyone else find this statement to be as sexist, pandering, and
>>insulting as I do? I am particularly fond of the "innate" part,
>>because, as we all know, it is far better to practice medicine via the
>>Force than to actually spend any time acquiring skills and knowledge.
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >William D. McIntosh, MD, FACOG
>>> >Clarksville, TN
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: Deborah Wage, FNP,CNM
>>> > To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 11:02 PM
>>> > Subject: men and sections
>>> >
>>> > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001102/hl/cesarean_1.html
>>> >
>>> > Deborah Wage MSN, FNP,CNM
>>> >
>>> > "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the
>>obvious."
>>> > Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Hellriegel, MD, PhD
>
>--
>"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive."
>
>Marianne Williamson
>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
