Male hospital staff

[ToadRage]

I don't really know how i feel about this or if I'm just being a bit precious. I had an appointment for a transvaginal ultrasound a couple of weeks ago. I was a bit shocked to find the sonographer was a man. A female nurse was present and she did all the talking, he barely said a word to me. I have had ultrasounds before but they have always been done by women. He was professional and nothing out of the ordinary happened but I felt a bit awkward as I haven't had a man down there except my husband in 20+ years, not even a male doctor. Am I wrong in thinking I should have been told it was going to be done by a man, maybe given the option to request a woman or AIBU?

Yes. You’ve never seen an analogue clock?

I’m not sure any other doctor would do that, it sounds utterly bizarre! You seem to have had some horrible experiences, but they do just sound like incompetent doctors. Possibly more incompetent men get to senior positions than women though, so there could be that.

I feel the same way. I've had two different male doctors in the past who made me feel uncomfortable so now whenever possible I choose a female.

I’ve said several times now (including to you) that everyone should have the right to express their preference for a physician of the same sex for any procedure. I wrongly thought there was an obligation to meet that request. Since there isn’t, I think that obligation should exist, and the patient be informed that that may increase waiting time (in some areas significantly) so they can make an informed choice.

The problem with having all female specialisms is that vacancy rate and effect on wait time. From memory the discussion around male mammographies was exactly to do with this. Personally I’m less in favour of making all women wait longer just so they only ever see a woman. Some of this could be addressed through recruitment campaigns and working conditions (part-time/flexi, childcare etc), but that takes time and investment. All the while women are missing out on early detection of female cancers, haemorrhaging because of common uterine disorders, risking cardiovascular disease, unable to conceive, unable to work… It’s a balance.

GP and hospital records don’t link up (in my area at least) so I’d suggest this preference should be expressed at each stage.

There no need to be rude. I just don't understand why a doctor would reach over your body to get to your bum 🤷‍♀️

Thankfully they don’t as it’d be another bit of unnecessary non-value adding admin added to an already bureaucratic system.

Just because something can be measured doesn’t mean it should be….

That's your opinion.

They didn’t. I was on my left side. They were at the foot of the trolley to do the insertion. At no point were they behind me or reaching over me. Can we put this massive derail to bed now? It’s adding nothing.

Well, yes. What other obvious statement are you going to come out with next? That 1 comes before 2?

I have PTSD from that shit! 😂

Genuinely, how do you know you never experienced it? It's entirely plausible that people were uncomfortable but didn't say so, especially as one is in a very vulnerable position at the time.

Fair point, but nobody ever expressed discomfort, and neither did I sense anything - I mean, not all procedures are without some discomfort, so... but if I was a patient experiencing discomfort beyond what I might expect, I'd let them know.

I think you’re being really precious! I’ve had many internal ultrasounds, most were carried out by males. I never once felt awkward of their gender (I’m also a lesbian but can see it’s just a medical procedure). Be grateful for skilled healthcare workers.

Obviously they looked at an entire patient population- that is the figures they found. This has been replicated in a similar UK study.

The 32% Risk Increase: A major population-based study of over 1.3 million patients published in JAMA Surgeryfound that women treated by male surgeons were 32% more likely to die post-operation compared to women treated by female surgeons.

Seriously? That’s your reaction?

Obviously the 200 male midwives figure is a snapshot in time. There will be a period when that was lower, obviously. However, after such lengthy training, midwives tend to stay in a job for some time so the numbers will be fairly stable.

I am fascinated why you seem unwilling to express ANY concern for the fact that the number of male midwives convicted of sex offences, several involving children, in such a tiny sample is not zero.

The issues with men working in nurseries seem to have similar (or worse) proportions with the numbers.

The 'obvious' solution is not to refuse treatment (with a 'tough luck if you die, it's your own fault for being fussy') to the huge number of women who do not want and will not attend screening or diagnostic appointments if there's a likelihood of a male doing it and re-educate them into being more accepting of males touching on and in their bodies, but to acknowledge this causes both significant risks to the women and significantly larger financial medical, social and emotional costs and put the money into meeting their needs and addressing this very real barrier to accessing tests and treatment.

Some may be unable in all eventualies and specialties, some may have something along the lines of anything below the collarbone or above the knees, some may draw the line at breasts, gynae or colorectal. All have absolutely valid reasons for doing so. It is not for middle managers to dictate that they'll just have to get over themselves or die, then.

But surely that's the whole point? Pregnancy aside, most women only reveal their private parts to an intimate partner, which is precisely why an unknown man inserting something into your vagina feels so intrusive.. I'm with you all the way OP.

Because I’m intelligent enough to know that prejudice against an entire group and a drive for collective punishment of an entire sex as a result of the abhorrent actions of a few is wrong.

A quick look through the annals of history will help you understand why.

More broadly, you seem completely anti-men. All ok?

Putting the money in is not, on its own, going to magic up more women in cardiology, or urology, or change the fact that even female dominated specialisms are still below 60% women. Most middle managers are women, so I doubt they’re saying ‘get over themselves or die’. But they are also not making the decisions and cannot in any case force more women to join the profession.

Seriously?? You don’t think it is important to know how many men with responsibility for intimate care of women and babies are convicted sex offenders?

Could you be any more dismissive of the safety of those patients?

Hmm. I think you’ve missed the point once again.

Convicted sex offenders wouldn’t have responsibility for intimate care of women or children.

Anyone convicted of such offences wouldn’t pass the employment vetting checks. I’m amazed you think they would pass and be allowed to work. I’m doubly amazed you think keeping track of the numbers would somehow solve the problem.

I think I’m going to stop engaging as you’re clearly not applying any critical thinking so I’m wasting my time.

You can’t make an actual argument or refute the facts so you resort to trying to insult my intelligence. Ok got it.

I can’t see how you equate me highlighting the number of sex offenders in a very small group that has huge responsibility and intimate access to women and babies with ‘prejudice against an entire group’.

I’m not suggesting a ‘collective punishment’ for men unless you think men take pleasure from having intimate access to women (sometimes without consent) and it is a punishment to remove that access?

A quick look through the annals of history will help you understand why.

I have no idea what you mean by this?

More broadly, you seem completely anti-men. All ok?

I am not remotely ‘anti men’. This is a common reaction of men when one men are criticised, they seem to get very affronted and take it personally. I have some lovely men in my life and have had treatment by very lovely male doctors.

Your repeated dismissal and minimising of the issues of safety and dignity for women and the worryingly high number of sexual assaults and rapes by medical professionals is telling though. Sadly that attitude is not uncommon, hence it is never dealt with.

I dropped a word. it should have said “Are now convicted sex offenders”

So men who have been recruited as midwives but then committed sexual offences while they had responsibility for intimate care of women and babies. And 3 was just what I found on a quick search, I’m sure the full list will be far longer. I’m not surprised the NHS don’t want to gather that data.

But this is Olympic level deflection and avoiding the issue in your part.

I think you are right though - you are wasting your time - with every comment I’m seeing more clearly little you think of the safety of women. I’d be happy not to engage with you further.

And your experience says that all women have to hold the same ?

Ok, typo, understood.

But still: what good would it do?

The problem is better solved with better vetting of all.

Not recording of those who slipped through the net and not by blanket banning a specific sex from the profession.