It depends on why we have those rules in the first place. I rather doubt it’s about anyone getting their “rocks off”. It has a lot more to do with the fact that in some unfortunate cases, male doctors have been known to sexually assault their female patients. Note that we don’t have male nurses in the room when women doctors examine male patients. The power dynamic is totally different.
JOhn.
In other words, judging an entire group by the actions of a very few. Is this right? I have been mugged three times, each time by black males. Should I refuse to be alone in the same room with a black male, based on my experiences?
No argument here. The majority of hetero doctors are professional, responsible, and mature enough to be able to treat an opposite-sex patient without seeing it in a sexual way. It’s the female patients who were made uncomfortable by a man seeing them undressed that caused the requirement to be put into place.
So that’s the situation; how do you make it better? By changing the policy and trusting doctors to be professionals and not perverts? Or by putting more restrictions in place that discriminate against those who can behave appropriately, all because there are some people who can’t?
Mind you, I’m not a woman, and don’t dare to speak for them, but I think the situation you describe is non-analogous. Unless things are rather different in your neck of the woods, you’re not seeking out muggers to engage their professional service, intentionally putting yourself under their care. And a mugger is not in a position of consentual authority over you. There is no implied bond of trust between you and a mugger.
To generalize just a bit :eek: it seems to me that male doctors are in a position of power in relation to their women patients that is easy to abuse. Many women are in no way as knowledgeable about health issues as their doctors. So, when a doctor says certain “tests” are necessary, it can be hard for women to disagree with total certainty. To prevent the appearance of potential abuse, most male doctors, I would hope, would be happy to have a female nurse present during certain types of examinations who could reassure the patient that the doctor is performing the correct type of examination and in the proper manner.
It seems clear to me that the power dynamic is very different with male patients. There aren’t many examinations that males get that are very open to abuse, and the ones that might lend themselves to abuse being very obvious. Besides, I don’t think men tend to trust their doctors as much as women do. (That’s entirely my own opinion based mostly on my own interactions with doctors. :D)
A similar power dynamic has led to a significant change in most organizations that work with children, most notably Scouts (both Girl and Boy). As I understand it, no parent is allowed to be alone with a child unless that adult is the child’s parent or legal guardian. Reasonable precautions in a situation that has the potential for abuse.
Hope that made sense. It makes sense to me! 
JOhn.
IMHO the doctor and patiented needn’t be required to be ‘supervised’ unless specifically requested for by the patient.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, male doctor’s do this only to protect themselves from false allegations of abuse and litigation.
Sol, Stott was outlining the position he takes as a “Biblical Christian”. You disagree with him (and me) about certain quite key aspects of what that means, but for me (I can’t speak for him), that is no barrier to interaction (or even friendship) although it would likely be a barrier to formal Christian fellowship in terms of church membership. As noted elsewhere, I’ve been told not to speak in one church, which was tantamount to inviting me to leave, so my own views on membership are necessarily equivocal.
I would guess that he supports, as I do, separation of church and state.
Just to clarify my position, I support gay rights - to marry, to divorce, etc. - and am open on the adoption issue. The fact that I wouldn’t vote for it at the moment doesn’t mean that I’d demonstrate against it if it became law (say, in the UK) or that I mightn’t vote for it (read, “support”) it later. And, yes, good data would have an impact on that decision for me.
And my position is that we are not obligated to provide data to prove that we are entitled to or deserving of marriage or adoption rights.
Everyone else is obligated to provide data proving that we’re not.
Sure. With the normal caveat re ‘prove’.
What is the normal caveat? That nothing can ever be truly “proven?” It doesn’t need to be; this is social policy we’re talking about, not the mysteries of the universe. Or are you talking about something else?
Maybe I should word my point another way: I’m not asking for permission. I’m not asking that society allow me to marry or to be able to adopt a child once I’ve found a husband. I’m entitled to these things, simply because I’m a human being.
Therefore, I don’t need to provide “good data” to influence anyone’s decision to support me in having these rights. Anyone who would choose to oppose these rights needs to provide “good data” to demonstrate why he’s denying them from me.
Sure.
Actually, it’s not just male doctors who have nurses present when doing gyno exams. A lot of female doctors do, too. In my gyno’s practice, it’s partly to have somebody there to hand you stuff and to fetch things as needed, but it’s also partly to cya in case someone claims they were molested. (For some reason, women are apparently more willing to continue seeing a male doctor accused of molesting female patients than a female doctor accused of the same thing, so my doc is extra vigilant about that sort of thing.)