From: jrfox@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam (Jonathan R. Fox)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: - A Startling Article
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:48:54 GMT

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:36:33 -0500, "Wayne" <wlogsdon@erols.com>
wrote:

>Since I learned the rules as a little kid.  Its so tough not to, that I
>don't think 1 person in a thousand can do otherwise.  That is by belief and
>a paraphrase from the mouth of a Roman Catholic Priest I heard long after I
>had decided it myself.
>
>You think you are not?  I watched as one of your colleagues peered  between
>his thumbs into my innocent daughter's vulva when she was a couple of weeks
>old and I suppose you've done the same thing thousands of times.  Made me
>uncomfortable just watching him.  Normal people get put in jail for that.

I'm a normal person and I don't get put in jail for looking at a
newborn's vulva.  Yes, I've done it countless times.  You see, I would
rather pick up evidence of virilization, diagnose congenital adrenal
hyperplasia (CAH), and get her to an endocrinologist at the first
examination rather than wait until she presents a few weeks later in
adrenal crisis and shock.  I think the kid and the parents would
appreciate it too.  I bet if you took a poll, most parents with kids
with CAH who presented near death would have preferred the diagnosis
was made sooner, and, I'll bet most of them don't have trouble
differentiating the act of a physician examining the genitalia of his
patient in a nonsexual manner.  You have already demonstrated that you
are quite confused and have many hang-ups on the matter of physical
examination and sexuality.  "Normal" people don't.

>Wouldn't it be more moral if there was a law that only allowed female
>physicians to examine female patients, like some of the Muslim countries
>have?

Well, aren't we the hypocrite.  You want to get rid of the laws
mandating autopsy but you want another one mandating same-sex physical
examinations.  I thought you were all about patient autonomy.

We don't need a new law.  As it stands now, if you're female, you can
have only female physicians examine you if you want.  Just don't go to
a male doctor.

All your law would do would restrict patient freedom.  I know a woman
who prefers a male gynecologist, and a heterosexual one at that.  She
fears a female one might be a lesbian, and that a homosexual male one
wouldn't appreciate the female anatomy.  She, too, is a
pseudo-Christian like yourself who doesn't understand the fundamentals
of her own religion but gets caught up with her hang-ups on the
details of it.  Maybe you two can get together and hash them out.

--
Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.

From: jrfox@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam (Jonathan R. Fox)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: - A Startling Article
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 02:27:11 GMT

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:09:51 -0500, "Wayne" <wlogsdon@erols.com>
wrote:
>
>Jonathan R. Fox wrote in message ...
>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:03:01 -0500, "Wayne" <wlogsdon@erols.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Jonathan R. Fox wrote in message
>>><540A16C9E45D4E27.24AF9CC45D61E8E9.A8EE71506D91E0E2@lp.airnews.net>...
>>>>
>>>>I'm a normal person and I don't get put in jail for looking at a
>>>>newborn's vulva.  Yes, I've done it countless times.  You see, I would
>>>>rather pick up evidence of virilization, diagnose congenital adrenal
>>>>hyperplasia (CAH), and get her to an endocrinologist at the first
>>>>examination rather than wait until she presents a few weeks later in
>>>>adrenal crisis and shock.  I think the kid and the parents would
>>>>appreciate it too.  I bet if you took a poll, most parents with kids
>>>>with CAH who presented near death would have preferred the diagnosis
>>>>was made sooner, and, I'll bet most of them don't have trouble
>>>>differentiating the act of a physician examining the genitalia of his
>>>>patient in a nonsexual manner.  You have already demonstrated that you
>>>>are quite confused and have many hang-ups on the matter of physical
>>>>examination and sexuality.  "Normal" people don't.
>>
>>I notice you have no comment on the above.  Then again, I really don't
>>care what you think anymore, since it's obvious that you don't think.
>
>Ok doc.  What you physicians call "hang-ups" is your mental crutch for
>justifiing actions that the general population considers taboo.  I call it
>immoral.  What's wrong with eliminating any chance of impropriity and making
>a law that says woman doctors treat woman and men doctros threat men?  Can't
>a "woman" do something as complicated as you do?

Again, you didn't comment on what I talked about.  You're going around
and around without saying anything.  About all you did say was a lame
attempt at accusing me of being sexist when, if anything, you're the
one advocating a law requiring gender discrimination.

Let's take a poll.  Readers of this thread (if there are any left):
If your pediatrician were male, and your daughter was born with
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) that could be detected by a
routine brief visual examination of the genitalia at birth, would you
prefer: (1) that your physician simply not look, and you only discover
the CAH a few weeks later when your child barely makes it to the
emergency room after having seizures and is in shock, requiring
admission to the ICU and being put on a respirator, risking brain
damage, or (2) that he looks during her newborn exam and makes the
appropriate referral to an endocrinologist, possibly saving her life.

Also, readers, do you consider it "taboo" and "immoral" for a
physician to examine the genitalia of a newborn?

>States have laws requiring that gynocologists must have a female nurse
>present during the examination, cause doctor after doctor has been accused
>of impropriities (even if it is a small percentage of all gynocologists).
>Fact is, from what I have heard over the years from several women; many
>gynos violate that law and have no other female present during the examine.

This has nothing to do with the above issues.  In reality, the reason
most male physicians have a female chaperone in the room during a
genital exam is to protect himself from false accusations by the
patient.

>I also find it hard to believe that physicans engaged in examining adult
>women can turn their mental interest on and off like a light switch.  I work
>with a few guys whose wives are RNs.  I've heard the stories about the
>nurses in the recovery room chattering back and forth with comments like
>"did you see the schlonce on that guy".  Now that kind of talk might sound
>funny coming from the ladies on the factory floor, but not in a setting
>where poeple have to expose the most intimate details of themselves.

I don't care what you find hard to believe or not about the inner
workings of a physician's mind.  The truth is the same.  Physicians
generally do not view their patients with sexual interest,
particularly babies, as you are implying.  You're the one who thinks
sexual thoughts when looking at a baby's genitalia, not me.

>>>>>Wouldn't it be more moral if there was a law that only allowed female
>>>>>physicians to examine female patients, like some of the Muslim countries
>>>>>have?
>>>>
>>>>Well, aren't we the hypocrite.  You want to get rid of the laws
>>>>mandating autopsy but you want another one mandating same-sex physical
>>>>examinations.
>
>    You male physicians made the gender choice of a doctor impossible for
>centuries because you all were bigoted sexists who wanted to keep all the
>money.  Now all of a sudden you are so concerned that we must have a choice?
>It's going to be funny if in another 50 years 99% of the people chose female
>doctors because they are smarter, more compassionate, and more inherently
>nurturing.  The good ol boy network may be doomed!

Gee, there's a compelling argument.  Again, a childish accusation that
I'm some bigoted sexist when you're advocating a law requiring gender
discrimination instead of free choice.  You just don't fail to live up
to the "hypocrite" label, do you?

--
Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists 
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 21:30:11 -0600
Message-ID: <adml6h$k8f$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>

"Alex K" <a_k41@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CFEC37D.C4E1740@rogers.com...
> Let me give you sexual abuse for an example. You do it as "just a
> person" u go to prison for 10-15 years. You do it as an "md" you loose
> your license and hopefully don't manage to settle out of criminal court
> and go to prison, too.

What do you mean by "sexual abuse"? Last I heard, MDs are subject to all the
penalties for sex offenses as everybody else, PLUS they lose their licenses.

In fact, in most states MDs are liable to lose their licenses even for
having sex with a adult consenting patient. Strangely, attorneys are not
liable to disbarment or indeed any problems at all for doing the same with
their clients. (I think the reason for this, is that if the rules weren't
different for lawyers, we wouldn't have any divorce attorneys left in
practice).

SBH

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists   
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:45:19 -0600
Message-ID: <ado0ba$7sn$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>

"Alex K" <a_k41@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CFF76D6.72E2974@rogers.com...

> > A sexual liasion with your lawyer, isnt a betrayal of what you
> > entrusted your lawyer with,
> >
> > while a sexual laision with a medical professional entrusted with the
> > care of your wellbing is a betrayal of what you entrusted the medical
> > prefessional with.


Trust is a moment by moment thing. If you can entrust somebody to remove
your heart, you certainly ought to be able to make the decision to trust him
to have sex with you, instead of having the law treat you like a minor or a
mental incompetent. In a sense you trust anyone with your body during sex,
whether they're your allergist or not.

It's only a betrayal of trust if the doctor has sex with you while you're
unconscious, drugged, or otherwise non compos mentis. And that's a very
different kind of trust.

SBH

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social 
	workers/psychologiststrollingusenet. .
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:23:26 -0700
Message-ID: <adogle$q7v$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>

Kurt Ullman wrote in message ...
>In article <3CFF7575.78DC81C6@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_k41@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>ok, put into these terms it's the lawyer who is being taken advantage of,
>> right?
>  You're kidding right?
>
>>Sex for money, Sex for service... that's all a completely different
>>chapter than when it happens within a doctor patient relationship. The
>>former is legal in most counties (including Nevada in the US.) the
>>latter is not.
>
>     The Canons of the American Bar Association would tend to disagree.
>Taking advantage of a professional relationship is bad form no matter who is
>doing it.


Yeah, but there's a difference between "bad form" and losing your license.
The canons of the ABA are being exquisitely hypocritical if they don't
demand dis-barment, which is the equivalent of de-licensure for MDs. The
idea of some kind of toothless professional censure among lawyers is a joke.
What-- you think lawyers worry a lot about their reputation among other
lawyers?

SBH


--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists  
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:16:46 -0600
Message-ID: <adnuk5$u2p$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>

"Alex K" <a_k41@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CFEE491.5D3C5CE8@rogers.com...
> very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for
> psychologists, dentists, etc.
> 
> I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for
> lawyers, as they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The
> physician get's to know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side
> (we all are vulnerable once we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand,
> gets to know his/her clients often from from their most ugly sides,
> especially in family law.

COMMENT

There are many situations in divorce, criminal and civil suit cases which
lawyers see their clients in far more mentally vulnerable situations than
even shrinks do. OTOH, the law for doctors applies to the patient who has
consensual sex with his/her dermatologist or allergist.  I mean, come on.
This is a ridiculous situation and there's only one real reason for it: laws
are mostly made by people with law degrees not medical degrees.

SBH

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists  
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:08:09 -0700
Message-ID: <adofoo$1rf$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>

>>There are many situations in divorce, criminal and civil suit cases which
>>lawyers see their clients in far more mentally vulnerable situations than
>>even shrinks do. OTOH, the law for doctors applies to the patient who has
>>consensual sex with his/her dermatologist or allergist.  I mean, come on.
>>This is a ridiculous situation and there's only one real reason for it: laws
>>are mostly made by mostly people with law degrees not medical degrees.
>>
>>SBH
>
>
>BS..  therapy clients are very vulnerable... How often does transference
>occur in a client lawyer relationship?  Certainly not to the degree it
>occurs in a patient doctor relationship with a psychiatrist or a
>therapist.


I understand this, but the law is not limited to doctors who are dealing
with mental problems. It applies to all doctors, and it's silly.


>
>you're just jealous cuz you got busted for sleeping with a patient..


I've never slept with a patient and certainly have never been "busted" for
it. I've never even been tempted, inasmuch as I'm a gerontologist <g>. Now,
yer Hollywood plastic surgeons may have a harder time.

SBH


--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists  
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:17:06 -0700
Message-ID: <adtopb$868$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>

Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote in message ...
> The issue (of sex between client and lawyer) is, like the same thing
>between physician and patient, is a matter of *power*, not physical or
>financial aspects.
>
>When someone is in a subservient position as to power, consent to sex
>is not full consent.  Thus, sex is prohibited between pastor and
>churchgoer, officer and enlisted person, prisoner and guard, etc.
>
>Thus, sex between attorney and client is no less damaging (and
>illegal) than between doctor and patient.


COMMENT:


It is indeed less illegal, and that's not contestable. Whether it's less
damaging of course depends on the case. Which is the point.

As for the power issue, you shouldn't conflate widely different issues.
People in prison are much more powerless than free people who choose to
believe in some religious or medical guru.  Or are you having problems with
the concept of free will?  If so, you'll make a bad district attorney
prosecuting these cases.  If I tell you that God told me you should have sex
with me (or give my parish a million dollars for that matter), it's
certainly your problem if you believe it (we assume here that you're an
adult with full mental faculties).  How is it that we are to believe in free
will for those who persuade or seduce (else how can we justify punishment
them for them), but not for those who ARE?  I don't think anyone would argue
that people being treated for mental problems by doctors should not be
having sex with them, but even here I'm not at all sure you can make a
really good moral and ethical argument for why no in all casest.  There are
mental problems and there are mental problems, and not all mental problems
make you legally incompetent to manage your affairs (ahem).  Would we say
that all people who see a psychiatrist should be treated as minors and their
ability to consent to have sex with ANYONE should be legally removed until
they get mentally better? I think many of them would object strenuously to
that, and rightly so.  So why is any of this YOUR business, as a member of
John Q. Public?

The other problem is that power in sexual relationships is a complicated
thing, as any of the cast of Ally McBeal could tell you <g>.  You can't
always measure it by formal social indicators like age, position, money, and
status.  The 50 year-old rich actor marries the 25 year old model. Who has
more power?  If you look at the case of Goldilocks sleeping her way to the
top of a large corporation, will her fellow office workers complain that she
has too little power, too much power, or JUUUST right?

And let's consider coercion for a bit.  Can a woman (or a man) refuse to
have sex with his or her spouse without any problems of adverse economic,
social, and emotional consequences?  Sure, for a night or a week or a
month--- but if you stretch out the time too much past this you're going to
come upon a place where you'll looking at continued refusal to have sex may
well possibly wipe out a spouse's whole way of life. So why is this not an
inherrently coercive situation? Has there ever been a case where a married
person had sex when they didn't really want to, but did so for the sake of
the "relationship" (or the kids or the house or whatever).  Should we look
at this sort of thing with a legislative remedy?

Lastly, let's forget sex for the moment entirely and look at other social
situations. The really ill patient is in a pretty bad position with regard
to the doctor, power-wise. But so also (for that matter) is the guy whose
car is broken down in a lonely place vis-a-vis Triple-A, or the guy in jail
with regard to the bailbondsman on a Friday night. Does that mean that all
these relationships are inherently immoral?  No, because the patient and the
guy on the road and the guy in jail can usually pick the competition (which
nearly always exists) without fear of too many adverse consequences. By
analogy, the woman who refuses a sexual advance from her allergist or
dermatologist is hardly in the same position as the woman who refuses one
from her commanding officer, corporate supervisor, or jailhouse guard.  So
why treat the situations as if they were the same?

And let us even grant the flagrant case where the dermatologist is
attempting use sex as a power lever ("Lady, I won't remove that mole until
you sleep with me")  ROFL.  Oddly, in medicine, it's not even the attempt at
coercion for sex that is illegal (as it is in the workplace)-- it's the act
of sex itself, whether coercion is involved or not. Indeed, whether the
proposal is made by the patient or not. This does not make sense.  So don't
try to defend it-- you'll just get yourself into a place where you look
sillier and sillier.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication,alt.support.depression.manic,
	alt.support.attn-deficit,sci.med
Subject: Re: Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists  
	trolling  usenet. .
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:21:33 -0700
Message-ID: <adtp1m$9nc$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>

Kurt Ullman wrote in message ...

>  I know of a couple of tatoo artists who do tatoos on private parts and then
>take them for a "test drive". I wonder if this isn't a violation of the trust
>between and artist and their canvas.


I'm thinking of Winston S. Churchill describing his first experiments with
painting and the canvas "Anyone could see it couldn't hit back.."  But I
suppose that's not true of the Illustrated Man (or woman).

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.