Is some healthcare 'macho' and other healthcare 'feminine'

[jonicomelately]

Listening to a debate about the rights/wrongs of keeping very premature babies alive, I had a bit of a lightbulb moment. One contributor spoke about how the health system threw all their resources at keeping babies alive only for there to be scarce money available later when these babies grow up and need a more 'caring' type of healthcare, physiotherapy for instance. It immediately struck me that keeping a child alive in an instant seemed like a macho, punch the air type of thing to do (although I absolutely concede that woman doctors could as easily do it) and that the more nuturing care could be described as a female type of activity (although again this could be administered by a man). It is the activity rather than the person who carries it out that I think could possibly be given the 'label' iyswim. I wonder whether because we value these macho acts of life-saving more than the female acts of life-enhancing that the latter attracts less funding.

Or, and I realise I'm posting this in a feminist section, could this be just one occasion where the good old patriarchy isn't at play???? Could this be the one scenario in the history of the world where women/feminine qualities aren't the victims????

Could the fact that doctors trying to save a life be doing it because that's there job???? Or because they value that life for what it is, what it may become and what that life means to the child's parents.

No, obviously I'm wrong and they only do it because those twisted chauvinistic doctors get kicks out of being macho and denying womens rights by proxy, ie. in this case, what you have nonsensically called "feminine" healthcare

I am a surgeon and the stupidity/patronizing assumptions made in the question are good reason to be bad tempered. I don't like the fact that even something like saving a child's life can be used to try promote a social/political viewpoint (ie. that women/femininity is always the victim of patriarchal dominance)

I think all the resources are 'thrown at' keeping a baby alive because we are a civilised society and doctors (male and female) are obliged to do their best to save lives.

What a very odd way of thinking OP

joni - I think you are on very heavily qualified grounds here. 'saving babies lives' is usually a very arduous stamina-draining process, for all concerned - not the "I've just scored a goal" stuff that you are implying. and on-going treatments for illnesses do often come with 'breakthrough moments' eg cancer remission, where air could understandably be punched.
also the bit about funding is impossible to establish. reads like a bit of a spurious theory, imo.

im22 - bit sharp there?

ah you're a surgeon?
still a bit scalpel-sharp.

and..it makes Men are from Mars etc stereo-types, which are v. mis;eading.

I think the OP has bought into all sorts of stereotypes and doesn't really perhaps know very much about neo-natal care (which generally involves months of care, with often many crisis along the way).

Personally I think that there are issues about heroic healthcare, whether that is saving very premature babies or campaigning for some of the more advanced (often very expensive, with nasty side effects and fairly small benefit) chemotherapy treatments for cancer. Or indeed the lack of palliative care options for the very frail elderly or terminally ill.

But I think that this is more to do with the prevalence of the 'where there is life there is hope' viewpoint; a growing distance from and therefore fear of death; the dominance within the healthcare system of hospitals; and the Cinderella status of many community based services and very little to do with gender.

Joni, I'm a nurse. I'm also a feminist. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have a clue what you're talking about! It's certainly not an attitude I have ever come across.

Ok. The first thing I should say is that I have no agenda. I'm not a poster who frequents this topic very often. Secondly, I am in no way saying it isn't a good idea to save a premature babies life although the discussion I was listening to did include a contributor who having made a documentary about premature babies did say he felt it was wrong to prolong these chuldren's lives for a short time and he questioned the resources used. The final popint I want to make is that my DP is long term disabled. It is a struggle to get the care he needs. The care he needs (orthotics) isn't sexy life being a brain surgeon or orthopaedic surgeon. I suppose the struggle we have on a daily basis lead me to question why long term care is unvalued and underfunded. I'm grasping for answers. For those posters who have attacked me, do post again if there is anything you still feel I am wrong about. I'm trying to explore an idea not bombastically throw out an agenda ridden feminist arguement.

I think only one person has 'attacked' you, Joni. The others have just disagreed with you. I agree with you that long term care is difficult to find support for from the powers that be, but I don't, at the moment, think it's a feminist issue.

Well you are totally right that long term care is underfunded. I think that's mostly because it is hidden. It's not a very attractive area to go into for many (for doctors there are few private practice opportunities, and probably not much research funding either) and the costs are often split across health and social care, so too many opportunities for passing the buck when money is short.

I think the notion of whether I've been attacked or not FlamingoBingo is a subjective matter and I do feel slightly miunderstood although I've been on here long enough to be ok about it. As a nurse and a feminsit have you never come across the idea of the Cinderella status of some aspects healthcare? Fwiw I think premature babies deserve all the resources and funding they can get. What I can't understand how we undefund their care further along the line.

I've just said that I agree that it happens! I disagree that it is a feminist issue, though! But, like I say, I disagree at the moment. I'm sensible enough to know that there may well be arguments that persuade me to think otherwise.

And it's not a subjective matter. You feel attacked but you weren't by anyone except the first respondent, whose response probably put you on the defensive and made you see all the other disagreements as attacks when they weren't.

If someone knocked into you by mistake, but you felt it was an attack, that doesn't make it one. It's not fair to post a message, and then tell the people who disagree with you that they are attacking you.

Oh ffs Flamingo. I'm really not bothered whether I've been 'attacked' or not. I'm also a lawyer so I know what the definition of 'attack' is without having it spelt out to me like I'm ten years of age .

Going back to the issue in question, DP has complex problems which presently are causing him major problems. The solution however is simple but the care providers don't seem to have the resources to deal with it. The doctor who treated DP when he was born subsequently toured the world lecturing on DP's condition. He has had more than his share of NHS resources and yet decades down the line we are battling to get the little, life-enhancing things sorted out.

The CP sufferer who was commenting on the prem babies issue (the discussion I referred to in the OP)said a similar thing. Huge resources were expended to keep her alive yet she can't get physiotheraphy.

In starting this thread, i haven't set out to further a feminist agenda. My only agenda is to help DP (and in coming on here, make sense of it).

Im22. Your posts put me in mind of some of the surgeons we've had the misfortune to come across. You clearly only see things in back and white and think that by shouting the loudest that makes you right. You're attitude is a world away from the best surgeons we've encountered, notably DP's neurosurgeon who is modest and not afraid to let his patients see that he doesn't know everything. He's also a world leader in his field. I'm sure you are very good at your job Im22. Your bedside manner however needs a LOT of work.

joni, I feel for you, but the fact is you haven't posted this in a medical/social studies etc. forum, you have posted it in a feminist forum claiming that your DP doesn't get the care he deserves (although you didn't mention him in your original post and if you had, I fully admit I would have toned down my initial criticism) because of some patriarchal dominance in who decides what gets funded and what doesn't in healthcare.

My posts were an attack on this assumption, not on you or your circumstances, and although I am sympathetic to your position, please don't assume that this means your original post/question has any merits. Your DP doesn't get the care he deserves (and I fully believe you that he probably doesn't) because of some of the issues raised by other responders, as well as many more, but please don't blame my entire gender for something that isn't it's fault.

I wish you and your DP all the best and that he can get the help he deserves

im22, a request.
In this section we manage to discuss a lot of quite contentious and sometimes very sensitive topics without, for the most part, being rude. Sometimes tempers are lost and voices get raised but people don't generally fly off the handle at a single exploratory post where the poster is clearly thinking through ideas and raising questions. If the topic is to be a safe space for discussion it is nice if it can remain this way.

im22.

I'm not sure what to say to be honest. I hadn't assumed you were a man. I think that makes me even more annoyed about the manner in which you responded to me.

I'm also deeply pissed off that you have said words to the effect that 'your DP probably doesn't get the care he needs.' I really don't think that you are in a position to raise even the merest of doubts about the truth of what I have said. To do so in this way reinforces my perception of you are highly arrogant.

In the years I've been on here I don't think I've ever been so offended. You do your profession and your gender a HUGE disservice.

Oh Joni . This is clearly, and understandably, a really bit, really emotional issue for you. I hope you manage to find the answers you want soon.

I do agree that im22 was very abrupt and pretty unpleasant, but no one else reacted like that but you said lots of people attacked you when we didn't. It doesn't feel very nice to be accused of attacking someone you simply disagreed with...but I'm guessing that you're coming from a pretty dark place right now. I can't imagine what you're going through, and your partner too.

We've had worse times Flamingo. A lot worse. We get through and people think we are OK but they don't see the exhaustion and tears of frustration.

Thanks for your kind words

Going back to the topic, I think nooka's right to say the distinction is between 'heroic' healthcare - the dramatic battle for life and death - and the other, less exciting but just as important stuff, such as pain management or chronic disease management.

Macho stuff I'd define as including emergency medicine and orthopaedics (has anyone ever met an orthopod who wasn't a rugger bugger?). Probably most surgery, tbh. Stuff that is regarded not exactly as softer but less macho would be paediatrics or anaesthetics. My guess would be there are far more female consultant paeds or anaesthetists than orthopods.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the way orthopaedics or surgery is run is deliberately sexist in an overt way. But it is striking that some specialties have far fewer senior women than others.

Dittany. Yes, I am coming at this from real life experience.

edam. You are absolutely right about orthopaedic surgeons being rugger buggers. It seems a very 'macho' occupation and this is the thing. They're happy to flounce in a cut bits off (I am being absolutely literal in saying that) but what about afterwards? The caring type of healthcare which is as crucial in the aftermath is perceived as women's work. I think it's no coincidence that this is underfunded.