Is this offensive or am I just over sensitive?

[lisa r]

Actually, I don't think it is that offensive.

Think about it:

Even though we are transitioning our body simply does not have some of the same organs of the gender we wish for genetically. Like, when I've been to the hospital for whatever reason and I get asked "when did you have your last period?" I tell them without hesitation and no shame whatsoever "well, I'm transgendered so that doesn't apply to me."

Most of them don't bat an eye and the questions proceed as usual. I DID have one nurse walk out on me one time and she sent someone else in her place. I just shrugged my shoulders and let it go because I had been living full time for a few years by then and more importantly, I was there to get my severely infected tonsils out which were killing me so I didn't care about what had just happened.

Life went on then and it goes on now.

This was asked in the family health, not personal health. Since it was for SRS, whether or not I'm trans was covered elsewhere (in various ways).

[Sarah Louise]

I guess it was a bit more strange then.  I'm not sure I would answer it in Family History.

[lisa r]

That was the "far-reached" reason that I considered. And you're right, it's even more offensive in this context (particularly if the question of how one might contract an STD from a family member is considered)... though I don't know how the statistics measure up relative to the population.

I'm not sure that was the concern. In a separate section it asks for the date and results of your last HIV test. I think the HIV status is pretty relevant and totally ok thing to ask (about the patient of course).

[JoanneB]

but you are being asked, so the point stands.

Yes, it was a trifle. But WHY was it asked to start with? What possible valid medical justifiction could there be to know if you are L, G or B.  T is a BIG stretch when viewed in that context. I have never seen it asked on other medical intake forms. Therefore being asked is likely for a non-medical purpose. Or, the are way ahead of the curve on intake forms. Or, waaaaay behind? Perhaps harkening back to a time, really not all that long ago when it was illegal to be a homosexual in the UK?

My inner cynic screams the reason was "I hate you folks, I don't want to 'catch' anything from you. In fact I want to quickly make up a reason why I cannot help you and send you off to someone else"

[aleon515]

I agree, it is not a "medical" condition, but if your on hormones it can make a large difference.

I know my doctor makes allowance for my hormones in how she treats my diabetes and thyroid conditions, mammograms, blood pressure, etc.

Ok, question: What medications are you on?
You could add dosage, that would cover any medical difference between very low dose and a high dose.


--Jay

[Laura91]

Everyone is oversensitive about nearly everything. That's why the notion of "political correctness" came from.

I agree. Being "PC" is just a way to stifle free speech. Sure, I hear some people say things that make me want to vomit BUT if you restrict speech for them, it is a slippery slope towards restricting speech for everyone.

[bethany]

I find that question quite offensive and irrelevant. What does it matter if another family member fit's under the LGBT umbrella? I get asking about family medical history as there are inherited health issues, but not if anyone is LGBT.

[Misato]

If I saw that I'd probably just ask the Surgeon or someone there why GLBT was listed as a health problem, out of curiosity.  Better than guessing at the reasoning they might have.

[Sara Thomas]

I agree. Being "PC" is just a way to stifle free speech. Sure, I hear some people say things that make me want to vomit BUT if you restrict speech for them, it is a slippery slope towards restricting speech for everyone.

Sure it's free-speech, but some of it should be stigmatized - which is different from restricting it.

[Jess42]

Was the surgeon for SRS? If so the only reason for that question to be in the family history section may be that you may have been influenced by a family member at an early age. Remember once the surgery is done, it can't be undone. With all the lawyers out there looking for big settlements, doctors have to really cover all bases.

Since he was transgender friendly and you know this, I wouldn't feel offended by it too much.

[Edge]

Maybe it was also for research/statistics purposes. "How many trans people have LGBT relatives?" I think they would have to let people know if it was for that though.

[aleon515]

Maybe it was also for research/statistics purposes. "How many trans people have LGBT relatives?" I think they would have to let people know if it was for that though.

Well if it is in the US this kind of info is protected by HIPPA laws. Don't think they could use it this way.
Not real familiar with exactly what HIPPA does, but that's my understanding anyway.

--Jay

[MidnightKat]

I have to say that I feel it's a bit offensive. I do not feel that one's sexual orientation is 1. a health issue, 2. any of your business, and 3. relevant.

[lisa r]

Was the surgeon for SRS? If so the only reason for that question to be in the family history section may be that you may have been influenced by a family member at an early age. Remember once the surgery is done, it can't be undone. With all the lawyers out there looking for big settlements, doctors have to really cover all bases.

I see your point, but that's a psych question and there are no other ones on the form. If the doctor was covering the psych side they would really ask away in depth about many things, but instead that's left up to the two psych side evaluations. I think even if they did ask a pile of questions it wouldn't be that much additional coverage from the two psych exams by people actually trained in the field.

[lisa r]

Well if it is in the US this kind of info is protected by HIPPA laws. Don't think they could use it this way.
Not real familiar with exactly what HIPPA does, but that's my understanding anyway.

--Jay

I bet this is it. There is an optional release to include the patient info (anonymously) in a research study. I didn't put the two together but it makes sense. It might have been politer to make a separate section and label it for research instead of sticking it in medical concerns.

FWIW I had a couple unrelated questions so I called the office and also asked about this. The person I talked to didn't know why it was there and I think understood why it could be taken badly. She sounded like she was concerned and just never thought about it before. I bet she gets it changed, I'll look again in a few weeks.

[aleon515]

I bet this is it. There is an optional release to include the patient info (anonymously) in a research study. I didn't put the two together but it makes sense. It might have been politer to make a separate section and label it for research instead of sticking it in medical concerns.

FWIW I had a couple unrelated questions so I called the office and also asked about this. The person I talked to didn't know why it was there and I think understood why it could be taken badly. She sounded like she was concerned and just never thought about it before. I bet she gets it changed, I'll look again in a few weeks.

Mind you, beyond a couple lines I don't read the HIPPA forms (I've signed 6 zillion of them of late), but I bet they aren't allowed to really do this. If someone IS doing it, I'd bet they could be liable. Somebody should be worried. Unless in that thick stack of papers you signed, you signed that it was ok for them to do this.

BTW, for friends across the pond, etc. HIPPA is a law which is essentially a privacy clause. Says info in medical records is confidential and can only be used for medical purposes, etc.


--Jay

[Vicky]

Having had to proof government forms for publication  far too many times over 33 years for a source of some of the most personal and confidential information people ever divulge, the most probable answer is that someone did not catch a boo boo when proof reading the thing during its galley proof phase, and new forms have not been ordered yet or the goof is still uncaught because you did not call it to their attention.  Simple goof, they used a list that started asking if YOU had those issues, and left that one line in the Blood Relative has had it column or heading. 

Not a big deal compared to when a tax form has you put your total income on a line that should be for the calculated tax amount that a machine scanner will read as what you owe and send you a bill that will give you heart failure on the spot. 

I would not be offended, I would just cross it off and not answer it or give a TS answer!!  (Too Snoopy! -- you think I have a dirty mind!!) There are bigger things to make my life miserable, like the tax form.

[calico]

If I saw that I'd probably just ask the Surgeon or someone there why GLBT was listed as a health problem, out of curiosity.  Better than guessing at the reasoning they might have.

+1 I would more than likely do the same as I know if I didnt know the reason it woulddrive me bonkers just fathoming the reason, which I am sure this topic is doing wonders to that cause.

Honestly IMO if it being on the paperwork bothers you or offends you there is perfectly nothing wrong with asking the dr why. I am totally sure he has seen/ been asked much more complicated things,and maybe if you bring it to light he possibly may adrees it with whom-ever writes his paperwork up.