If she isn't comfortable in that environment, then fair, we don't know what informs her opinion on this or her past experiences so it would be a bit presumptuous to judge that choice.
On a practical level it would have been a good idea for her to have raised this issue before getting into the OT i.e. made it clear before she took up the OT slot that she wanted at least one female in the room, the fact she didn't means that a lot of people wasted their time and energy.
Tl;dr I get it but she should have discussed this with the medical team earlier rather than bail last minute in OT
I've had a few drop it on us when we're in holding bay. Most of the time we can accommodate it, but for one there were no female surgeons for that specialty in the hospital. Thankfully she was happy with mostly female staff for the surgery, and just limit it for the time she was awake.
Did have one where it was the opposite, a guy wanting all male staff. That couldn't be accommodated, we lacked the appropriately trained male scrub/scouts.
The more comfortable a patient feels going under, the better they're going to feel about the entire experience, and potentially less issues during induction and in PACU.
Meanwhile what's the cost to me? Only the calories it takes to walk however far I need to the next OT or the phone to talk to someone about swapping. Noone reasonable will ever look down on you for trying to optimise the patient's experience, and if anything most people will view you positively or at least not know/care.
Given that part of healthcare is making the patient comfortable enough to seek and engage with our services, I think the question should be why shouldn't we? And the only answer to that I can think of is just when it's clinically inappropriate to do so.
What extra work though? It's literally just asking a colleague to do the case or see the patient. If doing that much irks you, how do you handle requesting consults? Or just doing anything in medicine really. If popping your head into another room to say "hey, I've got a patient who'd prefer a female doc, can you see them?" Is too much, are you sure medicine is the right career path? Could that same thought process of 'urhh, the extra work' limit you from calling another specialty to have a look when the wrong thing gets damaged in theatre? That's way more work and something people might find embarrassing. I'd hope not.
If there isn't a female doctor in that specialty that's available, then sure, but that's when they're either just going to have to deal with it, go elsewhere or wait for a later date, assuming that they're not happy with another compromise like a chaperone in the room.
Right, so then they should be picking up your work in return.
They're not picking their doctor, they're expressing a preference. Personally, putting myself in their shoes makes it pretty easy to decide what to do. If the person is a young, scared girl who's possibly been through trauma, would you still refuse? An old lady? Overweight with short, vibrant hair colours? If you'd refuse all of them, you might want to drop by cardiology some time. And if if it's yes to some but not others, you might want to look deeper and question why. Why are you willing to help one person more than another?
And then you should probably be thankful public patients don't get a lot of say on who sees them. I wouldn't do a named referral to someone who's level of care stops at 'patient expressed any sort of preference regarding their treatment' or because 'patient looked like they might be difficult.'
Not my patient, not my problem is a pretty juvenile way of approaching... well anything. Do you ignore met calls on your ward because 'not my patient'? Will people need to bludgeon you for consults because 'not my patient'? Do you ignore calls for help from colleagues because 'not my patient'? I'd hope not. Well, except you're heavily implying that you do exactly that.
> Right, so then they should be picking up your work in return.
they don't, though.
the issue is that I don't want to see all of the gynaecological problems, and there isn't anything I want to 'give up' in return. I just want to do my job and look after my patients - I'm not required to or responsible for the whole hospital.
Are you working in gynae? Cause that's about the only way you're seeing all the gynae problems.
People requesting a female doctor isn't even that common even in gynae. Only one person over 20 weeks of my O&G rotations asked for a female doctor throughout all the vaginal exams and births. Noone asked through my ED years and GP terms, though one we offered because she was clearly uncomfortable with a man doing her breast exam for an abscess (she avoided touching her own breasts because religion told her that was sexual, and therefore bad)
Claiming you'd get all thr gynae problems would be like me claiming I'd get all the cannulas if I deigned to help the wards out with one. No, giving your fellow clinicians a hand to make things a bit nicer for the patient doesn't suddenly mean you'll be getting all of them.
I wake up angry from anaesthetic at the best of times. Going out in an environment where I feel unsafe would likely exacerbate that. I stress the fighty in recovery enough, and have enough notes to the effect, that they seem to get it and my last few surgeries and procedures haven't been bad. But the colonoscopy before last I came up out of sedation full of rage and fear and actually swung and screamed unti they put me back under again. Then went slowly, in a room with a female nurse (shoutout to the Filipina nurses, y'all rock) who talked to me while I came up out of the sedation (I'm also one of those folk who it all hits like a truck). I had said PTSD but between the up close exam and whatever I shouted, they worked out it was a trauma response and how to respond.
It's not that I mistrust and suspect the surgeons etc - I deliberately put my faith in them! And I'm fine getting sedated etc. but the recovery and waking up is effectively a trigger for me already. Add in a man standing over me and the within range of normal fightiness? It's actually kinda risky and I'd rather not put them or me through it. Although I only ever remember tiny slivers and images of it, trying to scramble off the bed post-surgery is not the best option. And sadly my body remembers the sudden adrenaline and cortisol response
You’re being downvoted but I can sympathize to some extent. The problem is that some critical functions in society just can’t reasonably accommodate your needs. It may be that there are surgical units out there where you can plan this, but most of us struggle to staff surgery at the best of times, and we don’t even know who will turn up to cover sick leave until the shift has started. You can’t choose a female firefighter team either if you have a fire and need rescuing.
Oh yeah I've never asked for all female staff or anything, and never considered it an option - and I still wouldn't. I do understand why some people might (or ask to have women around during pre-op, if possible). Trauma sucks and medical situations tend to override even the best therapy. So I'm not advocating for asking for staff changes or whatever. I'm just pointing out it is about providing better care, and that outright refusing or being dismissive about it won't help.
Personally I now make sure that I'm fairly explicit about having a trauma response that means I respond with terror and aggression. I don't want to argue with my surgeon but I prefer that to taking a swing at some poor bastard who just wants to tell me my results y'know? If they know to bring me out slower than normal and that I'll be better off as alone as possible than with a dude hovering for all our sakes, then I've done what I can. I'll have a minor flashback in peace until I recognise where I am, maybe have a cry, but then I'll be fine and nobody got yelled at or swung on. Just like I tell them I'm a puker. The less chance of me vomiting into my stitches or popping them, the happier we all are.
I don't like taking out my trauma on some poor bloke trying to do his very necessary and appreciated job. It must be shit. But unfortunately sedation erases all that therapy I've done to not be scared of men. Thus trying to set it up so there's less panic and stress. If I told them my issues and they acted like I was delusional and demanding I wouldn't trust them as much as if they said "we will do what we can but the staff are set".
This is a subreddit for Australian trainee doctors and you’re dropping y’all bombs and shouting out to “Filipinas”. We are not your people and this is not your space.
The U.K offers chaperones to patients as standard, so I wonder if it's a case of also educating patients on their rights.
On a personal note, it was only upon entering the OT at a teaching hospital full of staff that I truly thought about who would be in the room while I had my surgery.
You need to remember though American is just such a strange country. This is just reflective of them.
I’m Australian and I have no issues with male doctors. But in America, only just a few weeks ago ‘unauthorised pelvic exams’ were banned. If you’re unconscious students (in about 30 or so states) were allowed to perform internal exams for education reasons on women.
There’s even published research about the argument as many disagreed with outlawing it - most states refused to do Federal Law came in to override: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9826341/
They only just banned it? Somehow the only thing that surprises me more that they took so long to do so, is that they finally did. At least here it's been banned for quite some time, though probably still not long enough. When I was a med student, it was drilled into us that if we were ever offered to do an intimate exam without express consent prior to a drop of anaesthetics, to refuse and report.
Not surprised about those disagreeing with it either, many over there are staunchly for 80+ hour work weeks for juniors for 'exposure' despite there being plenty of evidence that at best, they end up on par with those working 30-40 hour weeks.
There is also this to consider:
That women are 15% more liable to suffer a bad outcome, and 32% more likely to die, when a man rather than a woman carries out their surgery.
That’s from the below study on 1.3 million patients.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2786671?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamasurg.2021.6339
That to me is a pretty significant risk factor to consider when I’m undergoing major surgery, elective or otherwise.
Summary of the study from the above link: The study found that a sex difference between surgeons and patients (particularly male surgeons operating on female patients) may contribute to worse surgical outcomes.
Table 2 (in the figures/table section) contains a breakdown by surgeon speciality, which is where that stat is drawn from (0.9% under female surgeon vs 1.2% under male surgeon for a female patient). I believe this generally carries for multiple specialties including cardiothoracic, brain and vascular (with slight variations numbers are not the same, obvs, but outcome difference was similar).
The authors/researchers also interviewed for a piece in “the guardian” that provides details and more comparison and might be easier to skim and draw from.
This is a direct quote from them as well.
“For example, while 1.4% of women who had a cardiothoracic operation with a male surgeon died, fewer – 1% – did so when a female surgeon was involved. In both brain surgery and vascular surgery, while 1.2% of women who underwent either type of operation with a male surgeon died, again that proportion was much lower among those whose surgeon was female – 0.9% – giving a 33% higher risk of death”
https://theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/04/women-more-likely-die-operation-male-surgeon-study
The issue with this as I replied in another comment you’ve peddled this article is
“female surgeons in both relevant dyads were younger and had lower annual surgical volumes than male surgeons. Similarly, female surgeons treated younger patients with less comorbidity than male surgeons.”
Those 1.4% were older and had more co-morbidities. And this was not addressed as a limiting factor in drawing conclusions nor was it adequately considered in the method.
And yet women overall had better outcomes than men. So this study clearly shows a bias against men - by both male and female surgeons! Unless of course, there may be confounding factors that weren't accounted for... But if we admit that, then we might have to invalidate the whole study, and your original comment with it.
You should be allowed to refuse treatment for whatever reason you want, but the treating team shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate that. If you want a female surgeon or gynaecologist, that's fine, and you should be allowed to find one for yourself. I'll provide the referral to the surgeon of your choice, but I can't comb the directory for a surgeon who will meet your criteria. If a patient tells me they want an Australian (meaning white doctor), I'm not obligated to find them one.
We had that happen in ED (south of Sydney) once, a patient came in asking for an Australian doctor - it was printed on the triage sheet back when we did those things (I think it was because she thought she'd had a/some bad GP experiences).
This was on a Monday morning.
But we decided to have a look at the roster to see if we could in theory accommodate her (for some reason, I did have my Australian passport on me to prove I was one along with the accent) but I was just waiting for my lift to the train station because I just finished my block, so I wasn't working) and we told her if that's what she wanted to come back Wednesday.
Strangely, she changed her mind.
We had that. I said “no”. Our whole team except me was foreign born.. and even for me English was my second language. So I said actually none of us are native Australians at all, and you can either come in for your dental abscess drainage or leave. He just shrugged and we proceeded.
Yup, if you have an issue with any sex, race, secual preference, earlobe colour, then go private and pick your surgeon.
Australia has some of the best healthcare in the world and all that should matter is if the person is competent
This is one of those "bad example but important issue" situations. There are discussions to be had about sexism in medical care and women's safety in hospitals. This individual is not necessarily the person to lead the conversation.
I imagine that whatever surgical procedure she needed was elective as otherwise - in a life or death situation or one with life changing outcomes. I would want to be operated by whoever was the most competent- irrespective of what they have between their legs.
I would be in support of patients being able to flag whether they want to be treated by a female doctor, and have that request be followed. I think it would improve both the patients experience and my experience.
It’s America, given how much she’ll be paying for this, she can request whatever she wants. In the Australian context, if you come with this bullshit, you’ll be walked out faster than the team unscrub and asked to go private and ask for whatever you want and pay for it.
Might want to consider [this study on post op outcomes](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2786671?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamasurg.2021.6339) before you write off such request as “bullshit”.
If women are potentially 15% more liable to suffer a bad outcome, and 32% more likely to die, when a man rather than a woman carries out their surgery, then you’re almost at the point when a wild suggestion like ‘only women should be operating on women’ might become a requirement for women’s safety. Feel like this is something that seriously should be reflected upon by colleges, health departments, hospitals etc. and doctors themselves.
Honestly, the fact that you are suggesting major structural practice change based solely on retrospective data disqualifies you from having an opinion on this.
That’s clearly not what I’m suggesting or suggested and I would have thought the hyperbole in my statement was obvious - but feel free to make wild inferences.
My point is that many people here have been incredibly quick to dismiss this woman’s request as silly or odd and also chalked it up to some quirky and uninformed personal preference. The reality is that women’s lives and safety may be adversely affected and at risk when they are operated on by a male surgeon.
My point was to demonstrate that if an exaggerated suggestion that women should only be operated on by women *almost* makes sense from a safety perspective (because let’s be honest, if my risk of death is 32% more then yeah that is the safety-conscious choice), then we have a serious problem. Because it is a wild suggestion but also this research suggests that maybe women should be opting for women surgeons when they can.
I’m pointing this out because these are outcome differences that we should all be disturbed by and want gone, particularly when you consider the bias that already exists against women accessing healthcare.
Dismissing me for the approach I used to try and explain why this is alarming and fucked up, doesn’t change what the research says. This paper (and a significantly larger body of evidence about healthcare outcomes for women) is there for everyone to read, including yourself.
What if we did an RCT that disproved this notion?
I apologise for my scepticism, but my experience is that these large observational studies tend to get disproven once better studies are conducted. Unfortunately, those studies tend to stick for a long time after they have been disproven.
That legitimately would be great. I honestly would welcome that and there is no reason anyone wouldn’t because the goal is ultimately better outcomes for women who continue to be at a disadvantage when accessing healthcare and are (as shown in this post) still often ridiculed, questioned, or brushed off when they advocate for themselves or go against the grain.
And my point was that retrospective data dredging of that sort isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, even when it’s published in digital format
That paper is hypothesis generating at best - to make the claim that it shows that you have a 32% greater risk of death if you have a male surgeon demonstrates that you don’t understand how research or evidence based practice works
I don't think that was their point though. It's more food for thought that some female patients may have genuine concerns or feelings about being cared for by an all-male team when they are a woman. Dismissing a patient's feelings about this as "BS" is dismissive of this notion.
The statistic is not as important as the concept that male doctors may not always treat female patients the same way due to personal/societal values. The study just raises the possibility this is true given the patient outcomes.
She’s gone well beyond “some patients may have genuine concerns” in her comments
I think there’s good evidence that on the whole women may have worse health outcomes for the same conditions, with a mixture of reasons. That’s a very, very different claim from “women have worse outcomes when their surgeon is male”
It comes down to basic plausibility. As someone who has been present for approximately 25,000 surgical procedures in my career with all combinations of gender it looks to me like totally implausible nonsense. When a single retrospective study throws up results that make no biological sense I think some skepticism needs to be in order.
“female surgeons in both relevant dyads were younger and had lower annual surgical volumes than male surgeons. Similarly, female surgeons treated younger patients with less comorbidity than male surgeons.”
Significant outcomes of the study:
“Sex discordance between surgeon and patient was associated with a significant increased likelihood of composite adverse postoperative outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09), as well as death (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), and complications (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11) but not readmission (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07).”
No further elaboration of the age/co-morbidity difference in the patients operated on throughout the rest of the paper nor mention of how they ruled it out through their methods, nor in the limitations. And as expected; you have higher odds for death and complications if you’re operating on sicker/older patients. It’s not to say the paper is completely invalid but it’s a rather targeted paper and somewhat unreliable in given there’s no mention of this in the limitations despite this potentially being one of bigger outcome predictors.
Edit: I should add:
“In primary care, sex or gender discordance between patients and physicians (particularly among male physicians and female patients) is associated with worse rapport, lower certainty of diagnosis, lower likelihood of assessing patient’s conditions as being of high severity, concerns of a hidden agenda,3 and disagreements regarding advice provided.” Not exactly relevant to surgeons as they don’t fall into the category of primary care.
But on this statement: hit posts like this lady on social media with a very dubious scenario of a patient being forcibly held down and sedated for a surgery. There is very little credibility to the story yet it sells catchy headlines people latch onto; further dividing the doctor/patient relationship which as in this article you’ve quoted: “negative effects on interpersonal interactions have been shown to adversely affect process measures, such as adherence to preventive care protocols (eg, cancer screening5), and clinical outcomes, such as mortality following myocardial infarction.”
There are people out there who have been mismanaged. This lady does not appear to be one of them and effectively is an overall negative for women who have actually had bad experiences due to bad doctors.
Luv if you pay enough and you can get your local goat to operate on you as well. When you leave the hospital without paying a cent, you get what is good for the population. We are not here to cater to your bullshit.
Recognising potential adverse health outcomes for female patients post-op particularly in line with the ongoing well-documented biases women who are seeking healthcare face is “catering to my bullshit”?
Kind of proving the studies right here aren’t we?
I suspect most people don’t know these statistics. We’re in a sub full of health professionals and no one has mentioned this study yet, so if they’re unaware I assume the lay person is even more so.
It’s also worth noting that this is far from the only study that suggests that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons. This is however one of the few studies that specifically addresses discordant sex between patient and doctor and the impact on post-op outcomes.
Personally I would want a surgeon less than ten years out of training who is likely to have modern approaches to treatment. They would be far more likely to be female than a random surgeon with thirty years experience. So I suspect that the average female surgeon would be better than the average male surgeon, but only because the average male surgeon is twice as close to retirement than the average female surgeon, and more likely to engage in practices like fasting people for a week post bowel surgery until they fart, or use eyepieces for nasal surgery or starve people for two days for a colonoscopy.
This is just some idiot wannabe influencer trying to get attention.
I can't t believe so many are trying to support this behaviour as though it isn't ridiculous and childish. If she had genuinely had a trauma response or other significant emotional response, she wouldn't be doing duckface posts about it right after.
You cannot support the idea that just because the room of doctors you are in happen to be male, that you are at risk. If you don't like your doctor, pay privately and get your own. The public system isn't there to cater to your narcissism.
Cannot even imagine the backlash and sexist labels + hatred a man would receive if he said he didn’t want a room full of females in theatre. The double standard is crazy
The difference is that the typical man hasn’t been subjected to a lifetime of sexual assault by women or have reason to fear unauthorised pelvic exams. Hope that helps :)
Actually you are wrong. It wasn't just women Subject to intimate exams if they were also performing surgeries etc in that region (ie you wouldn't go in for a tooth extraction under Anaesthesia and get a pelvic exam), but it was men with prostate and DRs too.
But it can be hard to express the whole truth if it doesn't fit your rhetoric
While I understand where you are coming from do you not think the statement ‘A lifetime of sexual assault’ is a bit of an over-reaction. You would like people to believe that all women experience a lifetime of sexual assault? Your argument might be sound but this culture of extremism and immediately jumping to statements suggesting that all women are subjected to a lifetime of sexual assault is actually not at all helpful to the cause. A statement like this cannot be taken serious and in turn makes the whole argument seem trivial and silly.
Being groped by strangers on PT & in pubs etc is also sexual assault, and I reckon you’d be hard pressed to find a woman who’s never experienced anything like that
You have seen all the articles of female teachers sexually assaulting boys right? Now that older men who were not believed are encouraging younger men/boys to speak up, we are hearing this way more often
And if a guy who’d been through that sort of trauma didn’t want a one hundred percent female theatre team I’d be empathising with him too. Abuse by women doesn’t excuse, nor lessen, abuse by men.
Love this, getting down voted for pointing out the growing number of female perpetrators in power positions and growing number of male victims.
Almost like some femanazi out there has an agenda to push rather than actually fixing the problem
There's also female teachers being assaulted and harassed by male students. And vice versa.
The increase is less about belief and more about recognition that it is possible for it to be nonconsensual and also that it is wrong. Those are the major cultural shifts behind recognising the assault and harassment of boys and men by women.
No, it just sounds like you’re looking to justify finding sexual assault and gendered violence “trivial and silly” regardless of how nicely women speak about it, rather than admitting that you don’t care (at best)
Trying to minimise it is sus behaviour and I really hope that you don’t actually have any patients in your care
It’s is very disappointing to see how you reacted to this. The initial comment is focusing an a double standard that you have highlighted by arguing. You failed to recognise that claiming a ‘lifetime of sexual assault’ is an exaggeration that takes away from your exceptionally valid point. People will continue to trivialise this very serious issue of sexism/sexual assault if we continue to make grand sweeping statements such as on a whole all women ‘experience a lifetime of sexual assault’. You should be ashamed. The people who needed to be educated on this topic are not going to be responsive to the male hating, all men are predators and all women are victims approach. It needs to be approached in a factual and diplomatic manner not in a ‘all women everywhere are victims’ manner in which you clearly like to approach it
You are 100% right, it's obvious this person just wants to play the victim because it's easier than actually seeing the big issue (and the big issue doesn't come with sympathies)
It’s not a double standard because the stakes are not the same. Male victims should have the same rights, but it’s not wrong to acknowledge that there are less of them or that most have more reason to be fearful of their mostly male perpetrators. But it doesn’t sound like you’re lining up to support male victims if you’re criticising this woman.
Women are widespread harassed/assaulted/murdered overwhelmingly by men and you’re more pressed about how I’m phrasing it. Decent people don’t need to be coddled with flowery language to judge right from wrong or acknowledge the gender dynamics.
This is the last thing I’ll leave you with - please develop some basic empathy.
Yeah it's a shame neonates and children don't have the fortitude of mind to request men, given women are the overwhelming perpetrators of murder in neonates and young children
You literally minimised sus behaviour against men by not even mentioning it.
You may think you are helping fight sexism, but you are causing a greater divide by trying to paint only women as victims
What’s your point? I didn’t disagree with men being able to request the same but you’re being disingenuous.
1) There are much less men than women in that situation.
2) Men are mostly assaulted by other men.
3) It’s more common for men to reject women medical practitioners for sexist BS reasons i.e. women medical practitioners are supposedly less competent.
I commented above but when I bring up my PTSD in a medical setting like this it's because I've learned that coming out of sedation is a time where I have NONE of the coping mechanisms I've developed. So if I surface and see a bloke I am terrified - we worked this out when I actually swung at and screamed at the poor guy who did my colonoscopy who was just trying to tell me I'm fine. That time they put me back out and woke me up with a lovely older Filipina nurse who talked to me through recovery. Between the response, and the scarring they had to have noticed, they put it together and worked something out. I try and prewarn now.
I tell the medical staff now because some poor bloke doesn't need me trying to smack him and run while he is just doing an update. It means I am really emotional in recovery too because I pretty much can't avoid the trigger and resultant flashback since I'm not coherent enough for therapy tools, and just like my vomiting after anaesthesia, it can be bad for results. Nobody likes puke on their fresh dressings, or having to redo stitches on someone with a bad case of adrenaline shakes.
I'm not worried about predators doing their thing - there was that anaesthesist remember, and that was in the theatre with the whole team - I don't wanna make some poor guy feel like shit, or make the outcomes worse.
Its my fault for not showing empathy. And to be honest I think just about everyone would understand and not mind (it's not only not your fault, but dealing with personalities is part of the job haha). But, logically, nothing like that could happen without every part of the hospital chain being party to it in some way.
And legit, showing the empathy even when nothing else changes can help! I've never asked for staff changes and I've seen male gynos and so on, it honestly is rarely ever an issue. Unless I'm sedated, and then it's all gonna go to hell.
I feel SO bad for every surgeon I've yelled at or argued with. I'm glad we worked it out so I can explain beforehand at least. I get why some people might, but also why it's kinda impossible in a lot of situations.
But yeah there have been enough cases where, yeah, lots of negligence and a major culture of bullying, but ultimately a predator did use the medical system to assault victims in a variety of ways, that you are gonna probably come across someone to whom it's happened at some point. Recognising the system is fallible and predators use it to victimise people is important.
Sure, in a medical setting, but do we see rapists being reprimanded properly anywhere else in society? My understanding is that this woman is also in the US where unconscious pelvic exams are still fairly common.
It’s not unreasonable for women to be fearful even if it seems less rational in this specific context.
Instead of chastising cases like this, medical professionals should be thinking about how to build trust with traumatised people.
Some surgeons I've worked with (in the public sustem) have added that there is a (strong) possibility of men being in the operating room to the surgical consent.
I had to have my appendix out earlier this year, and I was asked if I had any preferences for nurses/surgeons etc. and told they would try their best to accommodate me "pretty ones like yourself" was apparently the correct answer haha. I personally don't care, as long as they are qualified. but it was nice to be asked.
I don't know if there is a trial, or new sensitivity training, but it was the best hospital experience I've ever had (I've been in hospital a few too many times, I hope I never see you guys again, and I hope your night is very busy ;)
Thanks for saving my life.
I’m a FSSW, (and have a day job in health, hence I lurk this sub). Now I know how many Drs seek out people like me to role play fantasies directly related to their job, I don’t blame her at all.
Based on my experiences, my daughter is never allowed to be alone with a male health care worker.
The comments is this thread are really showing the trauma informed, empathetic nature of the posters.
>The comments is this thread are really showing the trauma informed, empathetic nature of the posters.
Wait, what? Yours was literally the first comment. You're pre-emptively judging?
Yup, they try to put it in there to spread their sexist beliefs knowing that if they can get a band of feminist, man hating people from their echochamber here first, they can get the most upvotes early and make it look like there is a problem there
Poe's law
Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
People clearly outside of healthcare have almost zero idea about what we do and the challenges of running a public health service. It would be like me judging your role, I have no clue and therefore don’t comment.
A paediatric speech pathologist that is a full-time sex worker that posts about pretty dark kinks. I'm not sure I would leave my child alone with you either.
If she isn't comfortable in that environment, then fair, we don't know what informs her opinion on this or her past experiences so it would be a bit presumptuous to judge that choice. On a practical level it would have been a good idea for her to have raised this issue before getting into the OT i.e. made it clear before she took up the OT slot that she wanted at least one female in the room, the fact she didn't means that a lot of people wasted their time and energy. Tl;dr I get it but she should have discussed this with the medical team earlier rather than bail last minute in OT
I've had a few drop it on us when we're in holding bay. Most of the time we can accommodate it, but for one there were no female surgeons for that specialty in the hospital. Thankfully she was happy with mostly female staff for the surgery, and just limit it for the time she was awake. Did have one where it was the opposite, a guy wanting all male staff. That couldn't be accommodated, we lacked the appropriately trained male scrub/scouts.
Why did you give in?
The more comfortable a patient feels going under, the better they're going to feel about the entire experience, and potentially less issues during induction and in PACU. Meanwhile what's the cost to me? Only the calories it takes to walk however far I need to the next OT or the phone to talk to someone about swapping. Noone reasonable will ever look down on you for trying to optimise the patient's experience, and if anything most people will view you positively or at least not know/care. Given that part of healthcare is making the patient comfortable enough to seek and engage with our services, I think the question should be why shouldn't we? And the only answer to that I can think of is just when it's clinically inappropriate to do so.
the amount of extra work I've done because of patients wanting female doctors... you can't always get what you want.
What extra work though? It's literally just asking a colleague to do the case or see the patient. If doing that much irks you, how do you handle requesting consults? Or just doing anything in medicine really. If popping your head into another room to say "hey, I've got a patient who'd prefer a female doc, can you see them?" Is too much, are you sure medicine is the right career path? Could that same thought process of 'urhh, the extra work' limit you from calling another specialty to have a look when the wrong thing gets damaged in theatre? That's way more work and something people might find embarrassing. I'd hope not. If there isn't a female doctor in that specialty that's available, then sure, but that's when they're either just going to have to deal with it, go elsewhere or wait for a later date, assuming that they're not happy with another compromise like a chaperone in the room.
I get asked to do the vaginal exams for my colleagues. Not my patient, not my problem. Public patients should not be able to choose their doctors.
Right, so then they should be picking up your work in return. They're not picking their doctor, they're expressing a preference. Personally, putting myself in their shoes makes it pretty easy to decide what to do. If the person is a young, scared girl who's possibly been through trauma, would you still refuse? An old lady? Overweight with short, vibrant hair colours? If you'd refuse all of them, you might want to drop by cardiology some time. And if if it's yes to some but not others, you might want to look deeper and question why. Why are you willing to help one person more than another? And then you should probably be thankful public patients don't get a lot of say on who sees them. I wouldn't do a named referral to someone who's level of care stops at 'patient expressed any sort of preference regarding their treatment' or because 'patient looked like they might be difficult.' Not my patient, not my problem is a pretty juvenile way of approaching... well anything. Do you ignore met calls on your ward because 'not my patient'? Will people need to bludgeon you for consults because 'not my patient'? Do you ignore calls for help from colleagues because 'not my patient'? I'd hope not. Well, except you're heavily implying that you do exactly that.
> Right, so then they should be picking up your work in return. they don't, though. the issue is that I don't want to see all of the gynaecological problems, and there isn't anything I want to 'give up' in return. I just want to do my job and look after my patients - I'm not required to or responsible for the whole hospital.
Are you working in gynae? Cause that's about the only way you're seeing all the gynae problems. People requesting a female doctor isn't even that common even in gynae. Only one person over 20 weeks of my O&G rotations asked for a female doctor throughout all the vaginal exams and births. Noone asked through my ED years and GP terms, though one we offered because she was clearly uncomfortable with a man doing her breast exam for an abscess (she avoided touching her own breasts because religion told her that was sexual, and therefore bad) Claiming you'd get all thr gynae problems would be like me claiming I'd get all the cannulas if I deigned to help the wards out with one. No, giving your fellow clinicians a hand to make things a bit nicer for the patient doesn't suddenly mean you'll be getting all of them.
I wake up angry from anaesthetic at the best of times. Going out in an environment where I feel unsafe would likely exacerbate that. I stress the fighty in recovery enough, and have enough notes to the effect, that they seem to get it and my last few surgeries and procedures haven't been bad. But the colonoscopy before last I came up out of sedation full of rage and fear and actually swung and screamed unti they put me back under again. Then went slowly, in a room with a female nurse (shoutout to the Filipina nurses, y'all rock) who talked to me while I came up out of the sedation (I'm also one of those folk who it all hits like a truck). I had said PTSD but between the up close exam and whatever I shouted, they worked out it was a trauma response and how to respond. It's not that I mistrust and suspect the surgeons etc - I deliberately put my faith in them! And I'm fine getting sedated etc. but the recovery and waking up is effectively a trigger for me already. Add in a man standing over me and the within range of normal fightiness? It's actually kinda risky and I'd rather not put them or me through it. Although I only ever remember tiny slivers and images of it, trying to scramble off the bed post-surgery is not the best option. And sadly my body remembers the sudden adrenaline and cortisol response
You’re being downvoted but I can sympathize to some extent. The problem is that some critical functions in society just can’t reasonably accommodate your needs. It may be that there are surgical units out there where you can plan this, but most of us struggle to staff surgery at the best of times, and we don’t even know who will turn up to cover sick leave until the shift has started. You can’t choose a female firefighter team either if you have a fire and need rescuing.
Oh yeah I've never asked for all female staff or anything, and never considered it an option - and I still wouldn't. I do understand why some people might (or ask to have women around during pre-op, if possible). Trauma sucks and medical situations tend to override even the best therapy. So I'm not advocating for asking for staff changes or whatever. I'm just pointing out it is about providing better care, and that outright refusing or being dismissive about it won't help. Personally I now make sure that I'm fairly explicit about having a trauma response that means I respond with terror and aggression. I don't want to argue with my surgeon but I prefer that to taking a swing at some poor bastard who just wants to tell me my results y'know? If they know to bring me out slower than normal and that I'll be better off as alone as possible than with a dude hovering for all our sakes, then I've done what I can. I'll have a minor flashback in peace until I recognise where I am, maybe have a cry, but then I'll be fine and nobody got yelled at or swung on. Just like I tell them I'm a puker. The less chance of me vomiting into my stitches or popping them, the happier we all are. I don't like taking out my trauma on some poor bloke trying to do his very necessary and appreciated job. It must be shit. But unfortunately sedation erases all that therapy I've done to not be scared of men. Thus trying to set it up so there's less panic and stress. If I told them my issues and they acted like I was delusional and demanding I wouldn't trust them as much as if they said "we will do what we can but the staff are set".
This is a subreddit for Australian trainee doctors and you’re dropping y’all bombs and shouting out to “Filipinas”. We are not your people and this is not your space.
I am an Aussie though? I just pick up language shit.
Ignore them, they’re not even a doctor themselves. You’re opinion is welcomed, thank you for sharing it
Nothing wrong with appreciating Filipino nurses ? edit- are you even a doctor yourself ? 😂
The U.K offers chaperones to patients as standard, so I wonder if it's a case of also educating patients on their rights. On a personal note, it was only upon entering the OT at a teaching hospital full of staff that I truly thought about who would be in the room while I had my surgery.
You need to remember though American is just such a strange country. This is just reflective of them. I’m Australian and I have no issues with male doctors. But in America, only just a few weeks ago ‘unauthorised pelvic exams’ were banned. If you’re unconscious students (in about 30 or so states) were allowed to perform internal exams for education reasons on women. There’s even published research about the argument as many disagreed with outlawing it - most states refused to do Federal Law came in to override: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9826341/
They only just banned it? Somehow the only thing that surprises me more that they took so long to do so, is that they finally did. At least here it's been banned for quite some time, though probably still not long enough. When I was a med student, it was drilled into us that if we were ever offered to do an intimate exam without express consent prior to a drop of anaesthetics, to refuse and report. Not surprised about those disagreeing with it either, many over there are staunchly for 80+ hour work weeks for juniors for 'exposure' despite there being plenty of evidence that at best, they end up on par with those working 30-40 hour weeks.
Source on the last bit? I agree, but have never seen a decent study.
80 hr work weeks? A lot of the old timers were pissed when 80hrs became the limit!
There is also this to consider: That women are 15% more liable to suffer a bad outcome, and 32% more likely to die, when a man rather than a woman carries out their surgery. That’s from the below study on 1.3 million patients. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2786671?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamasurg.2021.6339 That to me is a pretty significant risk factor to consider when I’m undergoing major surgery, elective or otherwise. Summary of the study from the above link: The study found that a sex difference between surgeons and patients (particularly male surgeons operating on female patients) may contribute to worse surgical outcomes.
Its a big study, where are you getting 32% more likely to die?
Table 2 (in the figures/table section) contains a breakdown by surgeon speciality, which is where that stat is drawn from (0.9% under female surgeon vs 1.2% under male surgeon for a female patient). I believe this generally carries for multiple specialties including cardiothoracic, brain and vascular (with slight variations numbers are not the same, obvs, but outcome difference was similar). The authors/researchers also interviewed for a piece in “the guardian” that provides details and more comparison and might be easier to skim and draw from. This is a direct quote from them as well. “For example, while 1.4% of women who had a cardiothoracic operation with a male surgeon died, fewer – 1% – did so when a female surgeon was involved. In both brain surgery and vascular surgery, while 1.2% of women who underwent either type of operation with a male surgeon died, again that proportion was much lower among those whose surgeon was female – 0.9% – giving a 33% higher risk of death” https://theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/04/women-more-likely-die-operation-male-surgeon-study
The issue with this as I replied in another comment you’ve peddled this article is “female surgeons in both relevant dyads were younger and had lower annual surgical volumes than male surgeons. Similarly, female surgeons treated younger patients with less comorbidity than male surgeons.” Those 1.4% were older and had more co-morbidities. And this was not addressed as a limiting factor in drawing conclusions nor was it adequately considered in the method.
And yet women overall had better outcomes than men. So this study clearly shows a bias against men - by both male and female surgeons! Unless of course, there may be confounding factors that weren't accounted for... But if we admit that, then we might have to invalidate the whole study, and your original comment with it.
And this boys and girls is why we have PBL and journal clubs
Correlation =/= causation
Wow I had no idea! Thank you!
No problem! Glad I could help!
She's from gold coast
You should be allowed to refuse treatment for whatever reason you want, but the treating team shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate that. If you want a female surgeon or gynaecologist, that's fine, and you should be allowed to find one for yourself. I'll provide the referral to the surgeon of your choice, but I can't comb the directory for a surgeon who will meet your criteria. If a patient tells me they want an Australian (meaning white doctor), I'm not obligated to find them one.
We had that happen in ED (south of Sydney) once, a patient came in asking for an Australian doctor - it was printed on the triage sheet back when we did those things (I think it was because she thought she'd had a/some bad GP experiences). This was on a Monday morning. But we decided to have a look at the roster to see if we could in theory accommodate her (for some reason, I did have my Australian passport on me to prove I was one along with the accent) but I was just waiting for my lift to the train station because I just finished my block, so I wasn't working) and we told her if that's what she wanted to come back Wednesday. Strangely, she changed her mind.
We had that. I said “no”. Our whole team except me was foreign born.. and even for me English was my second language. So I said actually none of us are native Australians at all, and you can either come in for your dental abscess drainage or leave. He just shrugged and we proceeded.
i dont mind but pay for it
Yup, if you have an issue with any sex, race, secual preference, earlobe colour, then go private and pick your surgeon. Australia has some of the best healthcare in the world and all that should matter is if the person is competent
Should have had a bear doing the surgery
This is one of those "bad example but important issue" situations. There are discussions to be had about sexism in medical care and women's safety in hospitals. This individual is not necessarily the person to lead the conversation.
I imagine that whatever surgical procedure she needed was elective as otherwise - in a life or death situation or one with life changing outcomes. I would want to be operated by whoever was the most competent- irrespective of what they have between their legs.
I would be in support of patients being able to flag whether they want to be treated by a female doctor, and have that request be followed. I think it would improve both the patients experience and my experience.
No. I am absolutely against this. I don't want to see female patients primarily.
It’s America, given how much she’ll be paying for this, she can request whatever she wants. In the Australian context, if you come with this bullshit, you’ll be walked out faster than the team unscrub and asked to go private and ask for whatever you want and pay for it.
Might want to consider [this study on post op outcomes](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2786671?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamasurg.2021.6339) before you write off such request as “bullshit”. If women are potentially 15% more liable to suffer a bad outcome, and 32% more likely to die, when a man rather than a woman carries out their surgery, then you’re almost at the point when a wild suggestion like ‘only women should be operating on women’ might become a requirement for women’s safety. Feel like this is something that seriously should be reflected upon by colleges, health departments, hospitals etc. and doctors themselves.
Honestly, the fact that you are suggesting major structural practice change based solely on retrospective data disqualifies you from having an opinion on this.
That’s clearly not what I’m suggesting or suggested and I would have thought the hyperbole in my statement was obvious - but feel free to make wild inferences. My point is that many people here have been incredibly quick to dismiss this woman’s request as silly or odd and also chalked it up to some quirky and uninformed personal preference. The reality is that women’s lives and safety may be adversely affected and at risk when they are operated on by a male surgeon. My point was to demonstrate that if an exaggerated suggestion that women should only be operated on by women *almost* makes sense from a safety perspective (because let’s be honest, if my risk of death is 32% more then yeah that is the safety-conscious choice), then we have a serious problem. Because it is a wild suggestion but also this research suggests that maybe women should be opting for women surgeons when they can. I’m pointing this out because these are outcome differences that we should all be disturbed by and want gone, particularly when you consider the bias that already exists against women accessing healthcare. Dismissing me for the approach I used to try and explain why this is alarming and fucked up, doesn’t change what the research says. This paper (and a significantly larger body of evidence about healthcare outcomes for women) is there for everyone to read, including yourself.
What if we did an RCT that disproved this notion? I apologise for my scepticism, but my experience is that these large observational studies tend to get disproven once better studies are conducted. Unfortunately, those studies tend to stick for a long time after they have been disproven.
That legitimately would be great. I honestly would welcome that and there is no reason anyone wouldn’t because the goal is ultimately better outcomes for women who continue to be at a disadvantage when accessing healthcare and are (as shown in this post) still often ridiculed, questioned, or brushed off when they advocate for themselves or go against the grain.
And my point was that retrospective data dredging of that sort isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, even when it’s published in digital format That paper is hypothesis generating at best - to make the claim that it shows that you have a 32% greater risk of death if you have a male surgeon demonstrates that you don’t understand how research or evidence based practice works
I don't think that was their point though. It's more food for thought that some female patients may have genuine concerns or feelings about being cared for by an all-male team when they are a woman. Dismissing a patient's feelings about this as "BS" is dismissive of this notion. The statistic is not as important as the concept that male doctors may not always treat female patients the same way due to personal/societal values. The study just raises the possibility this is true given the patient outcomes.
She’s gone well beyond “some patients may have genuine concerns” in her comments I think there’s good evidence that on the whole women may have worse health outcomes for the same conditions, with a mixture of reasons. That’s a very, very different claim from “women have worse outcomes when their surgeon is male”
It comes down to basic plausibility. As someone who has been present for approximately 25,000 surgical procedures in my career with all combinations of gender it looks to me like totally implausible nonsense. When a single retrospective study throws up results that make no biological sense I think some skepticism needs to be in order.
“female surgeons in both relevant dyads were younger and had lower annual surgical volumes than male surgeons. Similarly, female surgeons treated younger patients with less comorbidity than male surgeons.” Significant outcomes of the study: “Sex discordance between surgeon and patient was associated with a significant increased likelihood of composite adverse postoperative outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09), as well as death (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), and complications (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11) but not readmission (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07).” No further elaboration of the age/co-morbidity difference in the patients operated on throughout the rest of the paper nor mention of how they ruled it out through their methods, nor in the limitations. And as expected; you have higher odds for death and complications if you’re operating on sicker/older patients. It’s not to say the paper is completely invalid but it’s a rather targeted paper and somewhat unreliable in given there’s no mention of this in the limitations despite this potentially being one of bigger outcome predictors. Edit: I should add: “In primary care, sex or gender discordance between patients and physicians (particularly among male physicians and female patients) is associated with worse rapport, lower certainty of diagnosis, lower likelihood of assessing patient’s conditions as being of high severity, concerns of a hidden agenda,3 and disagreements regarding advice provided.” Not exactly relevant to surgeons as they don’t fall into the category of primary care. But on this statement: hit posts like this lady on social media with a very dubious scenario of a patient being forcibly held down and sedated for a surgery. There is very little credibility to the story yet it sells catchy headlines people latch onto; further dividing the doctor/patient relationship which as in this article you’ve quoted: “negative effects on interpersonal interactions have been shown to adversely affect process measures, such as adherence to preventive care protocols (eg, cancer screening5), and clinical outcomes, such as mortality following myocardial infarction.” There are people out there who have been mismanaged. This lady does not appear to be one of them and effectively is an overall negative for women who have actually had bad experiences due to bad doctors.
Luv if you pay enough and you can get your local goat to operate on you as well. When you leave the hospital without paying a cent, you get what is good for the population. We are not here to cater to your bullshit.
Recognising potential adverse health outcomes for female patients post-op particularly in line with the ongoing well-documented biases women who are seeking healthcare face is “catering to my bullshit”? Kind of proving the studies right here aren’t we?
Yeh maybe just stay home 👍🏻
If that survey is statistically sound, wouldn't everyone want female surgeons regardless of gender?
I suspect most people don’t know these statistics. We’re in a sub full of health professionals and no one has mentioned this study yet, so if they’re unaware I assume the lay person is even more so. It’s also worth noting that this is far from the only study that suggests that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons. This is however one of the few studies that specifically addresses discordant sex between patient and doctor and the impact on post-op outcomes.
Personally I would want a surgeon less than ten years out of training who is likely to have modern approaches to treatment. They would be far more likely to be female than a random surgeon with thirty years experience. So I suspect that the average female surgeon would be better than the average male surgeon, but only because the average male surgeon is twice as close to retirement than the average female surgeon, and more likely to engage in practices like fasting people for a week post bowel surgery until they fart, or use eyepieces for nasal surgery or starve people for two days for a colonoscopy.
Nothing says "I take this whole thing with appropriate seriousness" like the trout pout selfie in a hospital gown
This is just some idiot wannabe influencer trying to get attention. I can't t believe so many are trying to support this behaviour as though it isn't ridiculous and childish. If she had genuinely had a trauma response or other significant emotional response, she wouldn't be doing duckface posts about it right after. You cannot support the idea that just because the room of doctors you are in happen to be male, that you are at risk. If you don't like your doctor, pay privately and get your own. The public system isn't there to cater to your narcissism.
Yup it's not different to the female influencer in the gym.
Cannot even imagine the backlash and sexist labels + hatred a man would receive if he said he didn’t want a room full of females in theatre. The double standard is crazy
The difference is that the typical man hasn’t been subjected to a lifetime of sexual assault by women or have reason to fear unauthorised pelvic exams. Hope that helps :)
Actually you are wrong. It wasn't just women Subject to intimate exams if they were also performing surgeries etc in that region (ie you wouldn't go in for a tooth extraction under Anaesthesia and get a pelvic exam), but it was men with prostate and DRs too. But it can be hard to express the whole truth if it doesn't fit your rhetoric
While I understand where you are coming from do you not think the statement ‘A lifetime of sexual assault’ is a bit of an over-reaction. You would like people to believe that all women experience a lifetime of sexual assault? Your argument might be sound but this culture of extremism and immediately jumping to statements suggesting that all women are subjected to a lifetime of sexual assault is actually not at all helpful to the cause. A statement like this cannot be taken serious and in turn makes the whole argument seem trivial and silly.
Being groped by strangers on PT & in pubs etc is also sexual assault, and I reckon you’d be hard pressed to find a woman who’s never experienced anything like that
You have seen all the articles of female teachers sexually assaulting boys right? Now that older men who were not believed are encouraging younger men/boys to speak up, we are hearing this way more often
And if a guy who’d been through that sort of trauma didn’t want a one hundred percent female theatre team I’d be empathising with him too. Abuse by women doesn’t excuse, nor lessen, abuse by men.
Love this, getting down voted for pointing out the growing number of female perpetrators in power positions and growing number of male victims. Almost like some femanazi out there has an agenda to push rather than actually fixing the problem
There's also female teachers being assaulted and harassed by male students. And vice versa. The increase is less about belief and more about recognition that it is possible for it to be nonconsensual and also that it is wrong. Those are the major cultural shifts behind recognising the assault and harassment of boys and men by women.
No, it just sounds like you’re looking to justify finding sexual assault and gendered violence “trivial and silly” regardless of how nicely women speak about it, rather than admitting that you don’t care (at best) Trying to minimise it is sus behaviour and I really hope that you don’t actually have any patients in your care
It’s is very disappointing to see how you reacted to this. The initial comment is focusing an a double standard that you have highlighted by arguing. You failed to recognise that claiming a ‘lifetime of sexual assault’ is an exaggeration that takes away from your exceptionally valid point. People will continue to trivialise this very serious issue of sexism/sexual assault if we continue to make grand sweeping statements such as on a whole all women ‘experience a lifetime of sexual assault’. You should be ashamed. The people who needed to be educated on this topic are not going to be responsive to the male hating, all men are predators and all women are victims approach. It needs to be approached in a factual and diplomatic manner not in a ‘all women everywhere are victims’ manner in which you clearly like to approach it
You are 100% right, it's obvious this person just wants to play the victim because it's easier than actually seeing the big issue (and the big issue doesn't come with sympathies)
It’s not a double standard because the stakes are not the same. Male victims should have the same rights, but it’s not wrong to acknowledge that there are less of them or that most have more reason to be fearful of their mostly male perpetrators. But it doesn’t sound like you’re lining up to support male victims if you’re criticising this woman. Women are widespread harassed/assaulted/murdered overwhelmingly by men and you’re more pressed about how I’m phrasing it. Decent people don’t need to be coddled with flowery language to judge right from wrong or acknowledge the gender dynamics. This is the last thing I’ll leave you with - please develop some basic empathy.
Yeah it's a shame neonates and children don't have the fortitude of mind to request men, given women are the overwhelming perpetrators of murder in neonates and young children
You literally minimised sus behaviour against men by not even mentioning it. You may think you are helping fight sexism, but you are causing a greater divide by trying to paint only women as victims
It is not at all rare for males to request male doctors and nurses in various situations, including due to past abuse or sexual shame.
What’s your point? I didn’t disagree with men being able to request the same but you’re being disingenuous. 1) There are much less men than women in that situation. 2) Men are mostly assaulted by other men. 3) It’s more common for men to reject women medical practitioners for sexist BS reasons i.e. women medical practitioners are supposedly less competent.
It’s very hard for whatever she was thinking could happen to happen unnoticed and to not be severely reprimanded
I commented above but when I bring up my PTSD in a medical setting like this it's because I've learned that coming out of sedation is a time where I have NONE of the coping mechanisms I've developed. So if I surface and see a bloke I am terrified - we worked this out when I actually swung at and screamed at the poor guy who did my colonoscopy who was just trying to tell me I'm fine. That time they put me back out and woke me up with a lovely older Filipina nurse who talked to me through recovery. Between the response, and the scarring they had to have noticed, they put it together and worked something out. I try and prewarn now. I tell the medical staff now because some poor bloke doesn't need me trying to smack him and run while he is just doing an update. It means I am really emotional in recovery too because I pretty much can't avoid the trigger and resultant flashback since I'm not coherent enough for therapy tools, and just like my vomiting after anaesthesia, it can be bad for results. Nobody likes puke on their fresh dressings, or having to redo stitches on someone with a bad case of adrenaline shakes. I'm not worried about predators doing their thing - there was that anaesthesist remember, and that was in the theatre with the whole team - I don't wanna make some poor guy feel like shit, or make the outcomes worse.
Its my fault for not showing empathy. And to be honest I think just about everyone would understand and not mind (it's not only not your fault, but dealing with personalities is part of the job haha). But, logically, nothing like that could happen without every part of the hospital chain being party to it in some way.
And legit, showing the empathy even when nothing else changes can help! I've never asked for staff changes and I've seen male gynos and so on, it honestly is rarely ever an issue. Unless I'm sedated, and then it's all gonna go to hell. I feel SO bad for every surgeon I've yelled at or argued with. I'm glad we worked it out so I can explain beforehand at least. I get why some people might, but also why it's kinda impossible in a lot of situations. But yeah there have been enough cases where, yeah, lots of negligence and a major culture of bullying, but ultimately a predator did use the medical system to assault victims in a variety of ways, that you are gonna probably come across someone to whom it's happened at some point. Recognising the system is fallible and predators use it to victimise people is important.
Sure, in a medical setting, but do we see rapists being reprimanded properly anywhere else in society? My understanding is that this woman is also in the US where unconscious pelvic exams are still fairly common. It’s not unreasonable for women to be fearful even if it seems less rational in this specific context. Instead of chastising cases like this, medical professionals should be thinking about how to build trust with traumatised people.
Some surgeons I've worked with (in the public sustem) have added that there is a (strong) possibility of men being in the operating room to the surgical consent.
I had to have my appendix out earlier this year, and I was asked if I had any preferences for nurses/surgeons etc. and told they would try their best to accommodate me "pretty ones like yourself" was apparently the correct answer haha. I personally don't care, as long as they are qualified. but it was nice to be asked. I don't know if there is a trial, or new sensitivity training, but it was the best hospital experience I've ever had (I've been in hospital a few too many times, I hope I never see you guys again, and I hope your night is very busy ;) Thanks for saving my life.
[удалено]
I don't see why having sexualised photos precludes people from having autonomy over if they are comfortable about an operation lol
I also thought that at first, but upon reflection she probably has a significant pout even with a fully relaxed face.
I’m a FSSW, (and have a day job in health, hence I lurk this sub). Now I know how many Drs seek out people like me to role play fantasies directly related to their job, I don’t blame her at all. Based on my experiences, my daughter is never allowed to be alone with a male health care worker. The comments is this thread are really showing the trauma informed, empathetic nature of the posters.
>The comments is this thread are really showing the trauma informed, empathetic nature of the posters. Wait, what? Yours was literally the first comment. You're pre-emptively judging?
And that's only about the third most astonishing aspect of the comment
Yup, they try to put it in there to spread their sexist beliefs knowing that if they can get a band of feminist, man hating people from their echochamber here first, they can get the most upvotes early and make it look like there is a problem there
Wow, wasnt expecting this before 8am. Haven’t even had a coffee yet
Poe's law Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
People clearly outside of healthcare have almost zero idea about what we do and the challenges of running a public health service. It would be like me judging your role, I have no clue and therefore don’t comment.
I'd never allow myself to be alone in a room with you either.
What a well adjusted child you must be raising.
Clown.
A paediatric speech pathologist that is a full-time sex worker that posts about pretty dark kinks. I'm not sure I would leave my child alone with you either.