Who's Playing Doctor?
In a recent conversation somewhere in the tubes of the interwebs, many reasoned minds came together and discussed in a most intellectual fashion the relative pros and cons of the gender of one's primary care physician. Ok, fine, it was a flamewar, but the argument still goes on about whether enlightened people in a mostly enlightened society have the right or wherewithal to choose their doctor based on such random or possibly unmitigatible factors as gender, race or other such considerations. Is it right for a woman to only see a female obstetrician or gynecologist or for a man to see only a male urologist or proctologist? Well, in this country, the answer is yes. Is it even right to want to see a doctor only of a specific race or ethnicity? Well, it's not very nice or fitting in with the idea of Martin Luther King Day, but again, the answer is, legally, yes.
Of course, when has legally right even been enough for people? Morally, is really a question between person and their own beliefs, but that's no fun, so let's get right into it. Yes, it is fine for people to discriminate about their doctor. First and foremost, the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust. A patient has to be able to trust his or her doctor to be smart enough to diagnose problems, smart enough to perscribe the right remedy and discrete enough to not repeat their problems to other doctors over drinks at the bar. But, before any of that can really happen, a patient has to be sure that a doctor can understand his or her needs and problems. Some people only feel comfortable telling their health problems to one of their own gender. After all, no woman can understand what it's like to be kicked in the testicles, nor can a man ever really understand menstrual cramping.
Well, so the theory goes. By this theory, no doctor who has never had cancer should be an oncologist, nor a doctor who's never had problems with his or her kidneys be a nephrologist. This is why we have lots of years of medical school for prospective healers. People don't HAVE to have subjective experiences ofa thing to be able to deal with a thing. Political scientists who do counter terrorism analysis are not expected to be terrorists at one point in their careers. In fact, that kind of thing might be looked down upon. But, there is still something that can be denied about comfort level with another member of one's own gender. A man describing erectile dysfunction is probably more comfortable doing so to another man, especially an older man. A 50 year old man telling some fresh out of medical school doctor who's barely broken 30 about how his penis isn't working in time of passion is likely to be less comfortable than telling it to a man his own age. And gender. And who speaks the native language.
Yes, people are picky when it comes to these, and well they should be, so long as they are allowed to be. In America, the 14th amendment protects people against state actions that discriminate based on all kinds of state action, but not personal action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars many kinds of private actions that are discriminatory in terms of interstate commerce. But when it comes to picking one's own doctor, one is free to, legally, pick whomever one wants. Getting insurance to cover it is another issue entirely. Other countries are not as lucky as the US in this regard. In some countries with centralized health care, there is less choice about whom one can choose. The British can have some lovely downfalls, like taking weeks to schedule an appointment that would be a matter of hours in the US. Or, if one doctor is busy, another doctor can be called until one can be found that is both available and meets the standards a person has set.
So, while the system here isn't perfect, there are far worse ones out there. Americans can, since they are bound by government on this, make their own decisions as they see fit, even dumb ones. Now, business owners can't do that, since they are providing some kind of service to all people, rather than just one on one relationships, but that's life. Especially if in a town where there is only one doctor, he can't refuse to see one race, or anyone who isn't one race; that's discrimination that hurts people. A person not going to one doctor only hurts the possible bottom line of that one doctor. People have many rights, but being rich is not among them. Right to life is, but well, people argue how well that is all going.
At least we're all here to enjoy the arguments.
So it is written, so do I see it.
Of course, when has legally right even been enough for people? Morally, is really a question between person and their own beliefs, but that's no fun, so let's get right into it. Yes, it is fine for people to discriminate about their doctor. First and foremost, the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust. A patient has to be able to trust his or her doctor to be smart enough to diagnose problems, smart enough to perscribe the right remedy and discrete enough to not repeat their problems to other doctors over drinks at the bar. But, before any of that can really happen, a patient has to be sure that a doctor can understand his or her needs and problems. Some people only feel comfortable telling their health problems to one of their own gender. After all, no woman can understand what it's like to be kicked in the testicles, nor can a man ever really understand menstrual cramping.
Well, so the theory goes. By this theory, no doctor who has never had cancer should be an oncologist, nor a doctor who's never had problems with his or her kidneys be a nephrologist. This is why we have lots of years of medical school for prospective healers. People don't HAVE to have subjective experiences ofa thing to be able to deal with a thing. Political scientists who do counter terrorism analysis are not expected to be terrorists at one point in their careers. In fact, that kind of thing might be looked down upon. But, there is still something that can be denied about comfort level with another member of one's own gender. A man describing erectile dysfunction is probably more comfortable doing so to another man, especially an older man. A 50 year old man telling some fresh out of medical school doctor who's barely broken 30 about how his penis isn't working in time of passion is likely to be less comfortable than telling it to a man his own age. And gender. And who speaks the native language.
Yes, people are picky when it comes to these, and well they should be, so long as they are allowed to be. In America, the 14th amendment protects people against state actions that discriminate based on all kinds of state action, but not personal action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars many kinds of private actions that are discriminatory in terms of interstate commerce. But when it comes to picking one's own doctor, one is free to, legally, pick whomever one wants. Getting insurance to cover it is another issue entirely. Other countries are not as lucky as the US in this regard. In some countries with centralized health care, there is less choice about whom one can choose. The British can have some lovely downfalls, like taking weeks to schedule an appointment that would be a matter of hours in the US. Or, if one doctor is busy, another doctor can be called until one can be found that is both available and meets the standards a person has set.
So, while the system here isn't perfect, there are far worse ones out there. Americans can, since they are bound by government on this, make their own decisions as they see fit, even dumb ones. Now, business owners can't do that, since they are providing some kind of service to all people, rather than just one on one relationships, but that's life. Especially if in a town where there is only one doctor, he can't refuse to see one race, or anyone who isn't one race; that's discrimination that hurts people. A person not going to one doctor only hurts the possible bottom line of that one doctor. People have many rights, but being rich is not among them. Right to life is, but well, people argue how well that is all going.
At least we're all here to enjoy the arguments.
So it is written, so do I see it.