Bioethics Blogs

Patient Modesty: Volume 78

HERE WE ARE AGAIN!  This graphic was published in Patient Modesty, Volume 4, June 26, 2008.  And the following is from Avram on that date:

MER is absolutely correct. As 
I’ve been posting here for over a year, nothing is going to change until the issue of a double-standard in modesty considerations for males ends up in court as a
class action test of DISCRIMINATION Law– unequal treatment by gender. We have had BFOQ provisions in law which manditate that health insitutions use them to protect the patient modesty(read privacy) of ALL patients, regardless of gender.

The right to privacy and modesty were linked in BFOQ legislation to include what would be viewed as intimate pelvic care. 

Everything that is currently status quo is outside the law and it will change if it is challenged because it can not be upheld within the existing law. 
Female nurses, male doctors, HMOs 
all have a vested interest in 
maintain high levels of female 
staff. They will stonewall to
their advantage at every turn
until a judge rules in class-action that males must be treated equally with females or BFOQ be
removed from law. If that were to happen, then all female patient modesty requests would also be
ignored and male staff could rushed into OB/GYN and L&D, etc. What’s good for the goose is 
good for the gander.

I’m not a lawyer but I know you 
can not discriminate against
either sex in a straight forward
manner. To respond “you are 
not a woman” is all an American
Civil Liberties attorney would need to make something out of this.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.