I was filling out an intake form for a surgeon and in the section entitled "List ANY Health Problems of Family Members" GLBT was listed, right between "Prostate Cancer" and "Heart Attack". For some reason I found this highly offensive and almost passed on the surgeon for this reason alone (despite knowing the surgeon is very supportive of the Trans community).
Am I overly offensive or does this just seem wrong?
I don't think it is offensive, but I don't agree with being LGBT is a health issue. I find it odd that a surgeon that is supposed to be supportive would have that there.
It does seem irrelevant to your health, if a family member were LGBT.
I can think of one far-reached reason that they might ask this, but it's pretty offensive.
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.
It is inappropriate, in my opinion.
If your Great Aunt Norah has a prostate how is that medically relevant to your reason for consulting this surgeon?
There is also nothing medically relevant to a surgeon about someone in your family being lesbian, gay or bisexual. That also includes STDs, because every single STD that can affect LGBT people affects everyone else in far greater numbers.
I'd suggest asking what they mean by this question it is ambiguous at best and discriminatory at worst.
Quote from: FTMDiaries on March 13, 2013, 10:35:47 AM
It is inappropriate, in my opinion.
That also includes STDs, because every single STD that can affect LGBT people affects everyone else in far greater numbers.
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.
wait, STDs affect other populations in far greater numbers? I'm calling bull. ever major study says otherwise.
And no, it's not offensive, just thorough. It's more offensive really to hide it, as that shows some form of shame for your heredity. although I do still question the relevance, there may be some I am unaware of.
Edited for profanity
Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
It's more offensive really to hide it, as that shows some form of shame for your heredity.
It's not hiding it if you're not asked.
I can't see the relevance.
but you are being asked, so the point stands.
Anyway, It's a choice to be offended by trivial things like this. if you know the doctor is trans friendly, which in all likelihood means he's LGBT friendly, I think you can safely assume that either the test is standardized and not made by him(not a reason to be offended, but this may make it outdated), or if it is made by him then there is no reason to take offense.
simple as that really.
If it were "trivial", lisa would not have expressed concern.
Each of us have our own priorities, none greater or lesser than another.
you're correct. I apologize.
I'm glad I have never come across that when filling papers out at a doctors office, but I can understand how it could apply.
I take several medications and the hormones I'm on could make a difference in what is prescribed or just make the doctor want to watch closer for side effects.
I guess I wouldn't be offended, but it would take me back for a moment seeing it asked.
Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
wait, STDs affect other populations in far greater numbers? I'm calling bull. ever major study says otherwise.
Really?
The straight, cis population far outnumbers the LGBT population in every single country of the world. Every major study shows that all STDs have much higher transmission rates in the straight population mainly because of their overwhelming numbers and the fact that a lot of young, straight people prefer not to bother with condoms. This has led to huge increases in STD transmission in the straight population. For example:
- Gonorrhea: most prevalent in teens and young adults, most of whom are straight.
- Chlamydia: most commonly reported STD in the US, mostly found in heterosexual females aged 14-19.
- HIV: despite the media trying to convince everyone that this is a 'gay disease', HIV is mostly found in the heterosexual population.
To illustrate my point, the majority (69%) of the world's HIV-positive people live in sub-Saharan Africa, where the disease is mostly spread by heterosexual men having unprotected sex with multiple female partners. It is mainly spread by migrant workers who leave the wife back home in the village when they go to the city to look for work... where they sleep with prostitutes and other high-risk women, becoming infected with HIV as well as spreading it around. It is against their culture (it is considered 'unmanly') to use a condom so their chances of catching it are extremely high. Then they go back home to the wife, who not only catches HIV from her husband, but very often she gives birth to HIV-positive children. More than 22 million people, most of them heterosexual, are HIV positive in sub-Saharan Africa.
Sources: Centers for Disease Control, WHO, and being a citizen of Sub-Saharan Africa. ;)
I think tomthom meant relevant to the population; and I think that it's fairly well-established - without having to provide a source - that some diseases (such as HIV amongst gay males) are a bit more prevalent in the LGBT community, though the margin is slowly decreasing with the heterosexual population.
(and please pardon me, tomthom, if I'm "thinking" incorrectly on your behalf)
I would've just been like "wtf" and then moved on.
Having been asked if I had the surgeries (this is *after* I was asked "Have you had any surgeries?" "Yes, a tonsillectomy.")-- and we know what surgeries these were, imo for no reason, I find it maybe not offensive but why?
Questions:
1. What surgeries have you had?
2. Have you had STDs?
etc.
I don't see that GBLT is a medical condition.
--Jay
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.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 13, 2013, 11:18:32 AM
I take several medications and the hormones I'm on could make a difference in what is prescribed or just make the doctor want to watch closer for side effects.
I take only one other med that isn't related to transition BUT if something happens to me and I end up on multiple meds (which is a strong possibility given my family medical history.) This would be my primary concern. This is why I disclose the fact that I am trans and have no reservations about it whatsoever.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 13, 2013, 01:57:58 PM
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.
Section was for FAMILY history, not personal. There was also a section for personal medications and since the application was for SRS, the T part of GLBT was established pretty thoroughly.
Quote from: Snickerdoodle on March 13, 2013, 10:11:47 AM
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).
I guess it was a bit more strange then. I'm not sure I would answer it in Family History.
Quote from: Sadie May on March 13, 2013, 10:48:38 AM
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).
Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 11:03:33 AM
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"
Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 13, 2013, 01:57:58 PM
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
Quote from: Bailey on March 13, 2013, 03:15:47 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Snickerdoodle on March 13, 2013, 09:39:56 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Edge on March 14, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Jess42 on March 14, 2013, 09:56:49 AM
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.
Quote from: aleon515 on March 14, 2013, 04:50:51 PM
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.
Quote from: lisa r on March 14, 2013, 11:04:20 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Misato33 on March 13, 2013, 10:25:18 PM
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.