Gender, Sexual Preference, and Health Care
The Southern Poverty Law Center has an article on the status of transgendered individuals. The article specifically discusses the high and increasing rates of violence in Washington, D.C.
This sort of leads into my views on the "right" of health care workers to refuse to treat people whose lifestyles they disapprove of. Right now, any doctor can refuse to prescribe a woman birth control or emergency contraception, regardless of her need. Many pharmacists are free to refuse to fill prescriptions she can get. This is an untenable situation for long term health of women, and the posts I linked to earlier tonight discuss that issue amply. Less widely discussed (at least on the forums I read) is the movement among socially conservative health care personnel to be allowed to refuse to treat homosexuals and transgendered/transsexual people.
That people who have entered into a field in which it is their duty to care for the physical health of those who seek their aid (or who are in dire need) are lobbying to be absolved of this duty when it comes to people they think are "icky" is distressing. This is not akin to a woman asking for an abortion from someone who objects to the practice, or from someone does not perform surgeries of any kind. This is about a doctor finding out a patient is homosexual and refusing to examine a patient, regardless of complaint. One of the people described in the SPLC article died primarily due to the negligence of EMTs after a car accident; they discovered her incongruent genital configuration while prepping her for care, and they spent at least 5 minutes joking around about it instead of giving emergency treatment. Fortunately her mother was successful in her wrongful death suit, but that didn't change the fact that a young woman died because of the lack of treatment. People with such misplaced priorities have no place in medicine!
The argument is not only the morality of refusing to care for people after taking an oath to do so. There is the "Somebody Else's Problem" aspect. Humans have an amazing ability to pass off problems as someone else's responsibility rather than our own. We all do it, to some extent. I try not to, but I still do it because ultimately I cannot do everything. Still, there is a limit to the number of trained health professionals in a single area and to the number a person can reasonably meet with, especially in an urgent care situation. Health care professionals have a responsibility to use their training to help those who need it. Health care cannot be selectively dispensed; these people worked hard to learn how to take care of people and are happy to practice on people they view as "normal." For a general practitioner, refusing to set a homosexual person's broken arm is akin to refusing to do the same for a Chinese American, an African American, or a disfigured person. These people are fully able to pay for the services (or have insurance that will help significantly). It is discrimination. If there are no queer-friendly doctors in an area, where are the 10% of the residents who are statistically gay supposed to get their care?
While we did once have different doctors and clinics for Blacks and Whites, and there are still class distinctions in access to good care, we've greatly reduced legal discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. It is no longer legal to turn someone away or refuse to give care because you don't like someone's look. Codifying discrimination is not the answer to these people's discomfort with homosexuals and transgendered people. Educating these people that they are not going to catch "the gay" and that morality lectures are not their place is. Ultimately, forming a more tolerant and friendly society will make the difference. I am hopeful for change, but have an eye on Sweden in the meantime.
This sort of leads into my views on the "right" of health care workers to refuse to treat people whose lifestyles they disapprove of. Right now, any doctor can refuse to prescribe a woman birth control or emergency contraception, regardless of her need. Many pharmacists are free to refuse to fill prescriptions she can get. This is an untenable situation for long term health of women, and the posts I linked to earlier tonight discuss that issue amply. Less widely discussed (at least on the forums I read) is the movement among socially conservative health care personnel to be allowed to refuse to treat homosexuals and transgendered/transsexual people.
That people who have entered into a field in which it is their duty to care for the physical health of those who seek their aid (or who are in dire need) are lobbying to be absolved of this duty when it comes to people they think are "icky" is distressing. This is not akin to a woman asking for an abortion from someone who objects to the practice, or from someone does not perform surgeries of any kind. This is about a doctor finding out a patient is homosexual and refusing to examine a patient, regardless of complaint. One of the people described in the SPLC article died primarily due to the negligence of EMTs after a car accident; they discovered her incongruent genital configuration while prepping her for care, and they spent at least 5 minutes joking around about it instead of giving emergency treatment. Fortunately her mother was successful in her wrongful death suit, but that didn't change the fact that a young woman died because of the lack of treatment. People with such misplaced priorities have no place in medicine!
The argument is not only the morality of refusing to care for people after taking an oath to do so. There is the "Somebody Else's Problem" aspect. Humans have an amazing ability to pass off problems as someone else's responsibility rather than our own. We all do it, to some extent. I try not to, but I still do it because ultimately I cannot do everything. Still, there is a limit to the number of trained health professionals in a single area and to the number a person can reasonably meet with, especially in an urgent care situation. Health care professionals have a responsibility to use their training to help those who need it. Health care cannot be selectively dispensed; these people worked hard to learn how to take care of people and are happy to practice on people they view as "normal." For a general practitioner, refusing to set a homosexual person's broken arm is akin to refusing to do the same for a Chinese American, an African American, or a disfigured person. These people are fully able to pay for the services (or have insurance that will help significantly). It is discrimination. If there are no queer-friendly doctors in an area, where are the 10% of the residents who are statistically gay supposed to get their care?
While we did once have different doctors and clinics for Blacks and Whites, and there are still class distinctions in access to good care, we've greatly reduced legal discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. It is no longer legal to turn someone away or refuse to give care because you don't like someone's look. Codifying discrimination is not the answer to these people's discomfort with homosexuals and transgendered people. Educating these people that they are not going to catch "the gay" and that morality lectures are not their place is. Ultimately, forming a more tolerant and friendly society will make the difference. I am hopeful for change, but have an eye on Sweden in the meantime.