Homophobic literature from a doctor

[Pah]

The Orlando Sentinel reported on February 2, 2005: (no longer available online)

Heritage Family Physicians P.A.’s lead physician, Dr. John R. Hartman, and Dawn Pope-Wright, the physician’s assistant, broke medical-ethics rules by using private information to further their political and religious agenda, [Karen Doering, senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights] said. “It clearly violates medical ethical standards,” Doering said. [...]

Beiler did not mention her sexual orientation to Pope-Wright during the visit, but her medical file did note it. Beiler returned twice to complain, Doering said. The second time, an office manager told her Hartman saw no problem with the materials, and that they had been given to other patients.

365Gay adds:

Beiler is asking CIGNA, her healthcare provider, and the Florida Board of Medicine to take action against Pope-Wright and Dr. Hartman for their unethical conduct. “When I opened the sealed packet, I was shocked and outraged,” said Beiler. “I was extremely offended and I felt like I had been violated. To this day I dread the thought of ever having to go to a doctor’s office again.”

Kathleen DeBold, Executive Director of the Mautner Project, the National Lesbian Health Organization, experiences like Beiler’s are indicative of deep-seated homophobia in the healthcare system that jeopardizes the health of a medically underserved population. “Although Ms. Beiler’s courage in telling her story is unique, what happened to her is not. Incidents like this are far too common, and the climate of fear they generate causes many lesbians to avoid or delay getting the medical help they need — often with devastating consequences.”

Medical Advice With Mixed Messages: Part I

That America has been theocratizing medicine is clear. Consider this January 30, 2005 report from The Washington Post –

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal [religious] beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients’ rights.

If the law can not help a patient utilize his or her medical rights, maybe the solution is the appropiate medical ethic board. Or a civil suit?

Wouldn't you call this this doctor's behavior at least rude?

 

[Mike182]

gosh, i did not realise :banghead3

nothing like that happens over in the UK (as far as i am aware........)

of course, i suppose it makes sense, because a doctor needs to know the sexual orientation of his/hers patients to help with diagnosing problems :sarcastic

was it only the doctors that had access to the files?

 

[jamaesi]

And they're trying to pass laws that say a doctor can refuse to treat GLBT people.

 

[d.]

unbelievable. i'm appalled.

 

[evearael]

Okay...
What does it accomplish to deny care based on the patient's freely chosen partner? Are they trying to deprive sexual minorities of medical care so they will all die off and no longer be a 'problem'? (Sounds like eugenics...) Do they honestly believe that refusing to provide care will make them change their ways?

 

[Flappycat]

Unprofessional, vicious, and altogether immoral.

 

[jeffrey]

Unfortunately, you have idiots in all professions. But when they are in such fields as doctors, lawyers, poloticians, etc, they can cause much more damage.

 

[Ardent Listener]

As a medical practitioner, I'm not condoning behavior by medical professionals that discriminate against GLBT people, however, is it ethical for a medical professional to not disclose that he or she might not be able to give their best care due to such prejudices?

I have no problem with working on GLBT people. However, I have been discrimated against by lesbian patients due to my gender. Discrimination in medicine can be a two way street.

 

[Ormiston]

What if you're a doctor who has an ethical problem treating blacks?

A_L...who's the customer? It seems to me that the most obvious reason for laws like these are simply to deny patients coverage by insurance companies. Probably sounds stupid, but that's where the money is at.

 

[Ardent Listener]

What if you're a doctor who has an ethical problem treating blacks?

A_L...who's the customer? It seems to me that the most obvious reason for laws like these are simply to deny patients coverage by insurance companies. Probably sounds stupid, but that's where the money is at.

The same would hold true in that case too Ormiston. Discrimination and disclosure is an ethical question that is debated in medcine.

Who is the customer? I would give you a list of patient's names but it would be unethical. But for the record. I have a lot of lesbian patients too.

You are so correct. Insurance "wags the dog" when it comes to medicine.

 

[Ormiston]

The funny thing is if you sue the doctors, your insurance will simply go up.

 

[pdoel]

however, is it ethical for a medical professional to not disclose that he or she might not be able to give their best care due to such prejudices?

Why on Earth would a medical PROFESSIONAL not be able to give the best care to someone because of that person's sexual orientation, skin color, nationality, etc.?

A person CHOOSES to go into the medical field. They do so out of a desire to help PEOPLE. I don't know of anyone who thinks, "You know, I really want to help people, save lives. But only white, heterosexual people. Everyone else can die."

That sounds silly, but by saying that someone cannot give the best care to someone due to prejudice, is saying exactly that.

I'm sorry, but if that's how the medical "professional" feels, they should be stripped of their license.

People are people, regardless of skin color, sexuality, disease, etc.

 

[Ardent Listener]

Why on Earth would a medical PROFESSIONAL not be able to give the best care to someone because of that person's sexual orientation, skin color, nationality, etc.?

A person CHOOSES to go into the medical field. They do so out of a desire to help PEOPLE. I don't know of anyone who thinks, "You know, I really want to help people, save lives. But only white, heterosexual people. Everyone else can die."

That sounds silly, but by saying that someone cannot give the best care to someone due to prejudice, is saying exactly that.

I'm sorry, but if that's how the medical "professional" feels, they should be stripped of their license.

People are people, regardless of skin color, sexuality, disease, etc.

Pdoel,

In a perfect world that should be true. But medical professionals all to often do hold predjudices. I would agree that they have a duty to make every effort overcome them. However, if they fail to do so, don't they have an ethical obligation to disclose that fact?

If I had any other options, I personally would not want to be treated by an individual who was forced to suppress his or her predjudice towards me because of fear they would lose their license. But of course that is not always the case such as in a E.R. situation.

But just visit an E.R. and watch how different people are treated every day. A lot more than skin color, sexuality, disease are factors in the quality of care people recieve.

 

[pdoel]

But just visit an E.R. and watch how different people are treated every day. A lot more than skin color, sexuality, disease are factors in the quality of care people recieve.

Well then they have no business being in that profession.

It shouldn't matter WHAT your profession is. There are people I work with, or customers I have, that drive me nuts. There are people I just don't care for (nothing to do with race or sexuality, just people who rub me the wrong way), but I still give them my full support. That's my job. There is such a thing as "The customer is always right".

When it comes to the health profession, people's lives often depend on that. If a healthcare professional cannot treat everyone with dignity and respect, and give everyone the absolute best care available, they should NOT be in that profession.

 

[Maxist]

How anyone could be homophobic baffles me; howevre I veiw that as not so much homophobic, so much as it is anti-homosexual. All taht aside, being a homophobe is about the least productive thing that you can do; hating anyone for their race, orientation, religion, or the words that they say is foolish. Anyone who hates anyone else for any of these reasons ---especially the one about the words that they say--- deserve to die ---agism is okay---.

 

[Bishka]

How anyone could be homophobic baffles me; howevre I veiw that as not so much homophobic, so much as it is anti-homosexual. All taht aside, being a homophobe is about the least productive thing that you can do; hating anyone for their race, orientation, religion, or the words that they say is foolish. Anyone who hates anyone else for any of these reasons ---especially the one about the words that they say--- deserve to die ---agism is okay---.

You say all that and then say agesim okay? What the heck? Ageism is not okay. Yes, they may being dying soon, but that is NO reason to treat them badly or differently. They deserve just as miuch rspect as the next person. So, when you are old and grey, you wanted be thrown to the side and treated differently?

 

[standing_alone]

---agism is okay---.

I don't know how you can claim to be a Marxist and then make a statement like that.

 

[kevmicsmi]

How anyone could be homophobic baffles me; howevre I veiw that as not so much homophobic, so much as it is anti-homosexual. All taht aside, being a homophobe is about the least productive thing that you can do; hating anyone for their race, orientation, religion, or the words that they say is foolish. Anyone who hates anyone else for any of these reasons ---especially the one about the words that they say--- deserve to die ---agism is okay---.

Sounds like you are an oldpersonophobe:tsk: