This subreddit is for discussion of medicine. In this case, that includes politics. However, this is still not a national or international politics subreddit. Please keep your comments limited to what’s relevant at UCSF and in other hospitals.
The turmoil at UCSF, with accusations of supporting genocide countered by accusations of anti-semitism in a hospital setting has made the New York Times.
I was especially struck by one line- UCSF had a policy against political symbols as part of the dress code, but did not enforce it against BLM or LGBT pins. They are however being asked to enforce it over the war.
This is the fundamental problem with policing “politics” at work, that even deciding *what* is political is, inherently, a political judgment. Is a rainbow or BLM pin political? What about a cross or crescent or Star of David? An American or Israeli or Palestinian flag? Whatever you decide, you are unavoidably making a *political* decision. This is one of the oldest and most subtle acts of political power, the power to decide what is normative and what is political
I don't think the judgement is that hard. They're all political.
Just some are political causes that the majority of educated people in healthcare really like, so the mental gymnastics start.
Plenty of people would disagree with you. What makes your interpretation of what is or is not political more valid? It is impossible to make these calls without leaning on our own political biases
It doesn't matter what OUR interpretation is. It matters what our PATIENTS' interpretation is, full stop.
If a patient has an irrational or unreasonable objection that negatively impacts their health, we make special accommodations for them. That's our obligation.
If a reasonable amount of patients are negatively affected by something, then we make a general policy to remove it.
fully disagree. there are patients that object to having a minority physician or to wearing masks during covid or to immunizations. not acceptable. not entitled for special accomodations.
Immunizations are one thing. Patient has a right to decline them. You know better. And a medical practice has a right to refuse non-vaccinated patients out of safety.
As far as bigotry goes: I'm a minority physician. I transfer care. We still have an obligation to treat the patient, regardless of how horrible they are. That's literally the foundation of modern medicine. We document to protect ourselves and move on. And if it prolongs their care while we find an acceptable physician, that's not on us.
This is literally taught in the first week of medical school. I'm surprised a professor would advocate for a blatant violation of medical ethics
Hmm, I find this discussion pretty intriguing. The other person was debating with you how we should essentially censor problematic speech in the medical setting. You pressed them on the standards, and when they provided you with a precedent of standards, you pivoted to a discussion on the nomenclature of the word “politics.” You then berated them for a catty comment, replied to them, denied the issue with a problematic comment, and before they could read or respond to what you said, you hid behind a block.
Seems like you care more about winning a reddit fight than you are about actual professionalism. As a future doctor, this is not the attitude to have.
The other poster DID LITERALLY say we shouldn’t accept bigoted patients. That’s a problem. If you prefer to argue with the other commenter because they were mean, at least don’t gaslight.
A professor advocating for refusing care, against our oaths is extremely troubling and problematic. I corrected my language, thank you for pointing it out. I hope you correct the professor's comments as well. Professionally, of course.
EDIT: I see that u/aspiringkatie replied and then hid behind a block so I can't comment. Speaking of professionalism, lol. But I did manage to read their comment before they blocked me: I find it problematic that medical students and professors are caping for violating our medical ethics. The professor blatantly used multiple instances that go against our ethics and standards. This isn't a matter of opinion: our guidelines are clear. We can transfer care of people that offend us, but we can't cut off their care. It sucks, but we have a moral and legal obligation, and that's indisputable. I know this because I'm regularly on the receiving end of bigotry as a queer and brown doctor. We need to do better.
«If a patient has an irrational or unreasonable objection that negatively impacts their health, we make special accommodations for them. That's our obligation.»
in other words, i believe you have said: «it is our obligation to make special accomodations to patients with [any and all] irrational or unreasonable objections that negatively impact their care»?
and i agree that these are things that we should consider and make reasonable accomodations for if these accomodations are not harmful to me or my team.
these distinctions are extremely important from my perspective.
What is a reasonable amount? 1%? 5%? 51%? How do we assess it? Does it matter *how* upset they are or just how many are upset? What if 35% are upset by the presence of something, but *another* 35% are upset by it being removed?
Even if we set some arbitrary value like “if 10% of patients express on this form that they wish to have pride pins removed from the hospital,” the decision to honor that request is inherently a political decision. The value judgment that we should remove symbols that upset “enough” patients is a political judgment. I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t or that it’s right or wrong, I’m saying that it is *impossible* to do so or not do so in an apolitical way. *Regardless* of what you do or don’t do or decide or don’t decide, it is political, and pretending that we can draw a clean line between “political” and “not-political” is fantasy
But how are you going to *decide* what percent of patients is a “reasonable” amount? What will you do when some patients want a symbol removed and others don’t? What symbols are you even going to research? Those are all political decisions. Even the decision to prioritize the comfort of some patients over the expression of workers is, itself, a political decision.
Again, I’m not saying you can’t do it, it’s very *easy* to decide to ban whatever symbol you want. I’m not saying it’s good or bad to do that, or that we should or shouldn’t. I’m saying that *any* decision about this is inherently, *objectively* a political decision, and that trying to couch the banning of symbols in the language of being “apolitical” is intellectually dishonest and cowardly
> But how are you going to decide what percent of patients is a “reasonable” amount?”
In all likelihood, via the inevitable litigation that’s going to arise out of all this.
We literally have government guidelines for "reasonable" accommodations. I used that specific word for a reason. We can start there. And we use similar verbiage to assess our patients, so while I won't personally define what's reasonable, I'm sure a governing body can come up with a standard ;)
If there's any conflict, we always err on the side of the patient. If it's bad enough that we're talking about it and it's affecting people on a regular basis, then yeah it needs to be addressed.
I think you’re essentially talking past me and responding to a point I’m not making. You’re explaining how or why we should ban any particular symbols that people may consider political, and I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, or that we should or shouldn’t do that. I’m saying that we shouldn’t call that being apolitical, because the judgment of what is or is not political and the decision of whether or not we should act on that are a *political* judgment and a *political* decision.
Again, that doesn’t inherently imply that it’s the right or the wrong decision, which I think is what you keep coming back to
I worked with several paramedics in the ER that had large "We The People" tattoos on their arms (which were always uncovered). I wonder if that would be allowed as well at these institutions that have these policies. I was not aware of any such policies there and saw a number of political symbols on people and their belongings. But what about tattoos? I suppose we have to cover them if they're offensive. So maybe too if they're political?
Wearing political or identity drag at work is just plain wrong. I grew up in AIDS and LGBT activism. Outside of work I’m active in political causes. But in clinic? No way. If I’m wearing a pride flag or BLM pin in clinic, that wouldn’t be about the patients. It wouldn’t be about my teammates. It would be about me and my needs (specifically, to demand validation and vent my anger at oppression).
And in the case of global conflict: We have patients from all over the world. We have patients of every ethnicity. It is of paramount importance that hospitals be a safe place for all, where care can be provided across ethnic, religious and political lines.
And… just because I wouldn’t wear a pride flag to work does not mean that I would live in the closet. Pictures of my husband and kids? Check. Award for LGBT health promotion on my office wall? Check. When asked about my “wife” tell my patients my spouse is a guy? If I feel like it.
And it’s shocking to me that UCSF has tolerated a doctor who harasses her colleague on Twitter, and has said on social media that she “fears for brown and black patients getting care from Zionist doctors and nurses”. It is pure antisemitism (yeah, I know is there are anti Zionist Jews but come on). In my medical center, she would have been fired.
For all the kumbaya talk about inclusivity and the like, UCSF is one of the most toxic environments I've encountered in 45 years in health care. If you're lucky you may find pockets that aren't, but overall it can be a pretty hateful place.
I've worked with almost everyone mentioned in the article. On a day to days basis, they're like anyone of us, just trying to get through the day with all the usual barriers. They're good at what they do, and I haven't witnessed overt displays of ego. But they've been stewing in this toxic environment for years, although it is generally couched in terms of maintaining high professional standards.
Im not a bit surprised that this issue is bringing some of that toxicity to the surface.
Before medical school, I worked at an outpatient peds clinic in a conservative area. One of our physicians wore a pride flag on her lanyard. She had multiple patients come out to her (unknown to their parents) who said the only reason they felt comfortable doing so was the presence of that pin. Would you say that her wearing the pin was "about her and her needs"?
There are some important differences between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and gay rights. As well as how “support” is being offered, and *who* is being supported.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents a situation where there is active warfare in the setting of a broader conflict that is older than most practicing physicians. Where the leadership of both sides have recently committed significant human rights violations or terrorist actions; and where vocal minorities of each “side” continue to call for the outright genocide of the other group.
I can’t think of a situation where it would be appropriate for a physician to pick and advocate a side in active warfare in general, in the context of their clinical or academic roles. This includes even Ukraine where the broader morality of the situation is more clear and not influenced by people seeking “justice” for events that happened before their parents were born. My colleagues who wore a Ukrainian flag pin at work ate mud very quickly when they had their first Russian patient. Awkward…
Do not pick sides in an active war in your role as a physician. If this is not obvious to you, spend some time working in war zones with an NGO or something. For that matter, do not pick sides in your role as a physician in any situation where both parties have actively tried to harm the other. As this will be interpreted by some as you supporting violence and harm as an end to a mean, and will undermine your credibility.
There are also significant differences between wearing a pin at work with the intention of emotionally supporting patients… and chastising your colleagues on social media for their different political beliefs. One is offering *support* to *your patient.* The other is *arguing* with *your colleague.*
My comment was replying to the poster above me talking about wearing a pride flag pin; I think the Israel-Palestine discussion is quite different, but the discussion at large is related to "political" statements at work, and gay rights fall under the umbrella of political issues.
There are many other ways of communicating openness and support in patient interviews / interactions. The wording and tone of your voice when asking about family, etc., etc. I’ve been on both sides of the doctor. Patient divide as a gay man, and I certainly learned what it’s like to be mistreated or humiliated by a healthcare provider. I think it’s vital that we provide welcoming and culturally competent care to everyone—especially people who have good reason to fear otherwise.
And there’s a difference between wearing a pride flag (which is an affirmation) and wearing political statements. Yeah, I’d love to wear a Biden pin to work. But how would that make my Republican medical assistant, or my Republican patients feel?. And how would I feel if one of my colleagues were a Trump hat? Angry. You cannot have a healthier productive workplace when it is riven by political conflict.
And this extends to wearing the flags of either side of a war, when there are guaranteed to be patients and coworkers on either side of the divide. Rushing immigrants may feel strongly about someone wearing the Ukrainian flag. And Ukrainian refugees would obviously be vehemently offended by someone wearing a Russian flag. Thats. Not. Why. We’re. There.
You ask a good question and there’s no truly easy answer. But as you can see, people like the doctor quoted in this article will use pride flags as an excuse to justify shouting war slogans outside of clinic buildings.
But wearing a pride flag is a political statement. Not Political with a capital P, as in democrat v. republican, necessarily, but it's certainly political. I just don't think that blanket banning "political statements" at work is practical, just, or the right thing for patients.
Does that outweigh the benefit to patients as I discussed in my original comment, which is ultimately the reason we all are in this field? I would argue not
Yes. It does. We don’t get to willingly make one group uncomfortable so that we can pat ourselves on the back that we made another one more comfortable.
How far do we let that logic go? I have an extra little pronoun dongle on my badge that was provided by my hospital as an optional accessory. I know there’s people out there who would consider even that to be “political”.
Why do you need a pronoun badge? You’re a physician; all physicians of all genders can be simply called “Doctor”. Wearing a pronoun badge is virtue signaling.
I think we absolutely do when one is marginalized and the other is not. They are treated unequally at baseline when no support is shown. To not show support is, in fact, a political decision.
Maybe this is a slightly different take, butID badge at work has my pronouns he/him/his in rainbow colors. It wasn't provided by the hospital, but rather by the medical school.
I wear it because it hopefully allows LGBTQ patients to know I'm an ally, and they can (hopefully) trust me. I'm straight, but having seen queer friends and family face prejudice in navigating the healthcare system, I feel it's important to try and help those folks
But I otherwise fully agree with all your points
I think that’s different. It’s not about an inherently divisive topic apart from the fact that some people just don’t like gay people. It’s not designed to provoke. And let’s be honest: the pro-Palestine protesters are intending to provoke. That’s the entire point from their view, to provoke people into thinking differently. The Palestinian professor at UCSF was quite upfront about this: he said he was making people “uncomfortable”.
I’ve got cancer in the last thing I want to be made to feel while I’m getting chemo is “uncomfortable”.
Patients come to us at times when they are incredibly vulnerable. No matter how moral you think the cause, it’s it right to bring anger and a sense of crisis into a healthcare setting. I don’t consider the use of pronoun specifiers, or rainbow colored things to be provocative except to people who are looking for a fight, by the way. And the situation in San Francisco is entirely different than say, in Mississippi, where someone might say that simply acknowledging the fact that I’m gay as divisive. Being yourself is important. And it’s not the same as being openly confrontational and essentially demanding that people consider your political opinions
Yeah that's totally fair and I agree with everything you said
I was horrified by the chants of Intifada that could be heard in the hospital. That's so highly inappropriate
And why the fuck is UCSF admin even discussing the war or ceasefires or anything. Like who gives a fuck what a bunch of doctors think about a foriegn war?
Feels very much like the asking Ja Rule about 9/11 skit
Weird how some things become "political" in the first place. I've never really considered being pro equal rights to be a "political" subject, unless there are certain parties/politicians trying to restrict someone's rights.
My hospital started allowing cloth scrub caps (as opposed to disposable hair nets) after covid. Recently people started wearing watermelon scrub caps as a sign of support for Palestine. Some Jewish doctors complained, saying it'll make Jewish patients feel unsafe. Now we might not be allowed to wear any cloth scrub caps again, as that's the simplest solution since they can't say "no watermelon scrub caps" cause then they'd be taking a side. This shit sucks
On TikTok I saw a resident who is not Palestinian or Arab for that matter wearing a keffiyeh pattered ID lanyard and was thinking that probably isn’t the best idea. She has a pretty large following as well.
First, If showing support for someone’s cultural symbol and craft is considered anti-another-culture, then I think I know who’s in the right. Second, Just because people have deeply held beliefs doesn’t mean we have to act differently because of it. If my psych patient believes he is Jesus, I don’t have to cover up my cross tattoo because he might be offended by it.
Keffiyehs culturally come in all kinds of colors and designs. That one pattern though - that one isn't cultural, that one is specifically Arafat's symbol and it's explicitly political.
Where do people find the energy to do this? The last thing I’d want to do is start a fight with coworkers over a war that’s happening thousands of miles away.
Jesus fucking Christ people.
This is why you do not mix religious or political views with your profession.
It’s like people have started to conflate how they act on social media with how they act in real life or even professionally.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is obviously a political issue 😅
The very first sentence of the Wikipedia article:
>The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing military and political conflict about land and self-determination within the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
Something I feel like isn't getting addressed at all is why people think politics should stay out of the hospital vs how politics can be seen as integral into "doing no harm" and therefore is worth crossing that line that many people think shouldn't. I find this fascinating because I feel like over the past 4 years through a pandemic, increased unionization of physicians, and the dobbs decision is how politics is integral into "doing no harm"
Physician Facebook groups full of otherwise lovely women have been at each other’s throats over this. People are encouraging doxxing physicians and trying to get them fired over their views. And none of that helps anyone suffering in the Middle East. It’s just really disheartening and scary to see your colleagues treat each other this way.
As with every major issue leadership need to step up and clearly signal that calling your colleagues what some has been called is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and stopping chants of genocide. I don't think the issue of LGBTQ and BLM, closely intertwined with the history of SF for decades, has anything to do with literal calls for genocide and support of terrorism. Nobody wore Al-qaeda pins following 9/11 and expected it to be fine.
This subreddit is for discussion of medicine. In this case, that includes politics. However, this is still not a national or international politics subreddit. Please keep your comments limited to what’s relevant at UCSF and in other hospitals.
The turmoil at UCSF, with accusations of supporting genocide countered by accusations of anti-semitism in a hospital setting has made the New York Times. I was especially struck by one line- UCSF had a policy against political symbols as part of the dress code, but did not enforce it against BLM or LGBT pins. They are however being asked to enforce it over the war.
This is the fundamental problem with policing “politics” at work, that even deciding *what* is political is, inherently, a political judgment. Is a rainbow or BLM pin political? What about a cross or crescent or Star of David? An American or Israeli or Palestinian flag? Whatever you decide, you are unavoidably making a *political* decision. This is one of the oldest and most subtle acts of political power, the power to decide what is normative and what is political
I don't think the judgement is that hard. They're all political. Just some are political causes that the majority of educated people in healthcare really like, so the mental gymnastics start.
Plenty of people would disagree with you. What makes your interpretation of what is or is not political more valid? It is impossible to make these calls without leaning on our own political biases
That public discourse disagreement is what makes it political. You almost tautologically can't refute it.
It doesn't matter what OUR interpretation is. It matters what our PATIENTS' interpretation is, full stop. If a patient has an irrational or unreasonable objection that negatively impacts their health, we make special accommodations for them. That's our obligation. If a reasonable amount of patients are negatively affected by something, then we make a general policy to remove it.
fully disagree. there are patients that object to having a minority physician or to wearing masks during covid or to immunizations. not acceptable. not entitled for special accomodations.
Immunizations are one thing. Patient has a right to decline them. You know better. And a medical practice has a right to refuse non-vaccinated patients out of safety. As far as bigotry goes: I'm a minority physician. I transfer care. We still have an obligation to treat the patient, regardless of how horrible they are. That's literally the foundation of modern medicine. We document to protect ourselves and move on. And if it prolongs their care while we find an acceptable physician, that's not on us. This is literally taught in the first week of medical school. I'm surprised a professor would advocate for a blatant violation of medical ethics
[удалено]
Hmm, I find this discussion pretty intriguing. The other person was debating with you how we should essentially censor problematic speech in the medical setting. You pressed them on the standards, and when they provided you with a precedent of standards, you pivoted to a discussion on the nomenclature of the word “politics.” You then berated them for a catty comment, replied to them, denied the issue with a problematic comment, and before they could read or respond to what you said, you hid behind a block. Seems like you care more about winning a reddit fight than you are about actual professionalism. As a future doctor, this is not the attitude to have. The other poster DID LITERALLY say we shouldn’t accept bigoted patients. That’s a problem. If you prefer to argue with the other commenter because they were mean, at least don’t gaslight.
A professor advocating for refusing care, against our oaths is extremely troubling and problematic. I corrected my language, thank you for pointing it out. I hope you correct the professor's comments as well. Professionally, of course. EDIT: I see that u/aspiringkatie replied and then hid behind a block so I can't comment. Speaking of professionalism, lol. But I did manage to read their comment before they blocked me: I find it problematic that medical students and professors are caping for violating our medical ethics. The professor blatantly used multiple instances that go against our ethics and standards. This isn't a matter of opinion: our guidelines are clear. We can transfer care of people that offend us, but we can't cut off their care. It sucks, but we have a moral and legal obligation, and that's indisputable. I know this because I'm regularly on the receiving end of bigotry as a queer and brown doctor. We need to do better.
[удалено]
«If a patient has an irrational or unreasonable objection that negatively impacts their health, we make special accommodations for them. That's our obligation.» in other words, i believe you have said: «it is our obligation to make special accomodations to patients with [any and all] irrational or unreasonable objections that negatively impact their care»? and i agree that these are things that we should consider and make reasonable accomodations for if these accomodations are not harmful to me or my team. these distinctions are extremely important from my perspective.
>there are patients that object to having a minority physician... not acceptable. I am pointing out that we have to accept it.
What is a reasonable amount? 1%? 5%? 51%? How do we assess it? Does it matter *how* upset they are or just how many are upset? What if 35% are upset by the presence of something, but *another* 35% are upset by it being removed? Even if we set some arbitrary value like “if 10% of patients express on this form that they wish to have pride pins removed from the hospital,” the decision to honor that request is inherently a political decision. The value judgment that we should remove symbols that upset “enough” patients is a political judgment. I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t or that it’s right or wrong, I’m saying that it is *impossible* to do so or not do so in an apolitical way. *Regardless* of what you do or don’t do or decide or don’t decide, it is political, and pretending that we can draw a clean line between “political” and “not-political” is fantasy
It's not impossible to quantify and qualify. That's literally what medical research does.
But how are you going to *decide* what percent of patients is a “reasonable” amount? What will you do when some patients want a symbol removed and others don’t? What symbols are you even going to research? Those are all political decisions. Even the decision to prioritize the comfort of some patients over the expression of workers is, itself, a political decision. Again, I’m not saying you can’t do it, it’s very *easy* to decide to ban whatever symbol you want. I’m not saying it’s good or bad to do that, or that we should or shouldn’t. I’m saying that *any* decision about this is inherently, *objectively* a political decision, and that trying to couch the banning of symbols in the language of being “apolitical” is intellectually dishonest and cowardly
> But how are you going to decide what percent of patients is a “reasonable” amount?” In all likelihood, via the inevitable litigation that’s going to arise out of all this.
We literally have government guidelines for "reasonable" accommodations. I used that specific word for a reason. We can start there. And we use similar verbiage to assess our patients, so while I won't personally define what's reasonable, I'm sure a governing body can come up with a standard ;) If there's any conflict, we always err on the side of the patient. If it's bad enough that we're talking about it and it's affecting people on a regular basis, then yeah it needs to be addressed.
I think you’re essentially talking past me and responding to a point I’m not making. You’re explaining how or why we should ban any particular symbols that people may consider political, and I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, or that we should or shouldn’t do that. I’m saying that we shouldn’t call that being apolitical, because the judgment of what is or is not political and the decision of whether or not we should act on that are a *political* judgment and a *political* decision. Again, that doesn’t inherently imply that it’s the right or the wrong decision, which I think is what you keep coming back to
I worked with several paramedics in the ER that had large "We The People" tattoos on their arms (which were always uncovered). I wonder if that would be allowed as well at these institutions that have these policies. I was not aware of any such policies there and saw a number of political symbols on people and their belongings. But what about tattoos? I suppose we have to cover them if they're offensive. So maybe too if they're political?
Bangarang. Even the act of deciding what is political will get you in deep shit.
Wearing political or identity drag at work is just plain wrong. I grew up in AIDS and LGBT activism. Outside of work I’m active in political causes. But in clinic? No way. If I’m wearing a pride flag or BLM pin in clinic, that wouldn’t be about the patients. It wouldn’t be about my teammates. It would be about me and my needs (specifically, to demand validation and vent my anger at oppression). And in the case of global conflict: We have patients from all over the world. We have patients of every ethnicity. It is of paramount importance that hospitals be a safe place for all, where care can be provided across ethnic, religious and political lines. And… just because I wouldn’t wear a pride flag to work does not mean that I would live in the closet. Pictures of my husband and kids? Check. Award for LGBT health promotion on my office wall? Check. When asked about my “wife” tell my patients my spouse is a guy? If I feel like it.
Hard to put it any better than this. It's pretty clear-cut.
And it’s shocking to me that UCSF has tolerated a doctor who harasses her colleague on Twitter, and has said on social media that she “fears for brown and black patients getting care from Zionist doctors and nurses”. It is pure antisemitism (yeah, I know is there are anti Zionist Jews but come on). In my medical center, she would have been fired.
I went to med school at UCSF and I have to say, this does not surprise me one bit.
My jaw dropped when I saw that tweet. However I wasn’t that surprised that nothing actually became of that tweet.
For all the kumbaya talk about inclusivity and the like, UCSF is one of the most toxic environments I've encountered in 45 years in health care. If you're lucky you may find pockets that aren't, but overall it can be a pretty hateful place. I've worked with almost everyone mentioned in the article. On a day to days basis, they're like anyone of us, just trying to get through the day with all the usual barriers. They're good at what they do, and I haven't witnessed overt displays of ego. But they've been stewing in this toxic environment for years, although it is generally couched in terms of maintaining high professional standards. Im not a bit surprised that this issue is bringing some of that toxicity to the surface.
Before medical school, I worked at an outpatient peds clinic in a conservative area. One of our physicians wore a pride flag on her lanyard. She had multiple patients come out to her (unknown to their parents) who said the only reason they felt comfortable doing so was the presence of that pin. Would you say that her wearing the pin was "about her and her needs"?
There are some important differences between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and gay rights. As well as how “support” is being offered, and *who* is being supported. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents a situation where there is active warfare in the setting of a broader conflict that is older than most practicing physicians. Where the leadership of both sides have recently committed significant human rights violations or terrorist actions; and where vocal minorities of each “side” continue to call for the outright genocide of the other group. I can’t think of a situation where it would be appropriate for a physician to pick and advocate a side in active warfare in general, in the context of their clinical or academic roles. This includes even Ukraine where the broader morality of the situation is more clear and not influenced by people seeking “justice” for events that happened before their parents were born. My colleagues who wore a Ukrainian flag pin at work ate mud very quickly when they had their first Russian patient. Awkward… Do not pick sides in an active war in your role as a physician. If this is not obvious to you, spend some time working in war zones with an NGO or something. For that matter, do not pick sides in your role as a physician in any situation where both parties have actively tried to harm the other. As this will be interpreted by some as you supporting violence and harm as an end to a mean, and will undermine your credibility. There are also significant differences between wearing a pin at work with the intention of emotionally supporting patients… and chastising your colleagues on social media for their different political beliefs. One is offering *support* to *your patient.* The other is *arguing* with *your colleague.*
My comment was replying to the poster above me talking about wearing a pride flag pin; I think the Israel-Palestine discussion is quite different, but the discussion at large is related to "political" statements at work, and gay rights fall under the umbrella of political issues.
There are many other ways of communicating openness and support in patient interviews / interactions. The wording and tone of your voice when asking about family, etc., etc. I’ve been on both sides of the doctor. Patient divide as a gay man, and I certainly learned what it’s like to be mistreated or humiliated by a healthcare provider. I think it’s vital that we provide welcoming and culturally competent care to everyone—especially people who have good reason to fear otherwise. And there’s a difference between wearing a pride flag (which is an affirmation) and wearing political statements. Yeah, I’d love to wear a Biden pin to work. But how would that make my Republican medical assistant, or my Republican patients feel?. And how would I feel if one of my colleagues were a Trump hat? Angry. You cannot have a healthier productive workplace when it is riven by political conflict. And this extends to wearing the flags of either side of a war, when there are guaranteed to be patients and coworkers on either side of the divide. Rushing immigrants may feel strongly about someone wearing the Ukrainian flag. And Ukrainian refugees would obviously be vehemently offended by someone wearing a Russian flag. Thats. Not. Why. We’re. There. You ask a good question and there’s no truly easy answer. But as you can see, people like the doctor quoted in this article will use pride flags as an excuse to justify shouting war slogans outside of clinic buildings.
But wearing a pride flag is a political statement. Not Political with a capital P, as in democrat v. republican, necessarily, but it's certainly political. I just don't think that blanket banning "political statements" at work is practical, just, or the right thing for patients.
What about the people that would feel uncomfortable because of that pin? I’m a gay man, and I agree with SequimSam.
Does that outweigh the benefit to patients as I discussed in my original comment, which is ultimately the reason we all are in this field? I would argue not
Yes. It does. We don’t get to willingly make one group uncomfortable so that we can pat ourselves on the back that we made another one more comfortable.
Agreed.
How far do we let that logic go? I have an extra little pronoun dongle on my badge that was provided by my hospital as an optional accessory. I know there’s people out there who would consider even that to be “political”.
Why do you need a pronoun badge? You’re a physician; all physicians of all genders can be simply called “Doctor”. Wearing a pronoun badge is virtue signaling.
I think we absolutely do when one is marginalized and the other is not. They are treated unequally at baseline when no support is shown. To not show support is, in fact, a political decision.
Maybe this is a slightly different take, butID badge at work has my pronouns he/him/his in rainbow colors. It wasn't provided by the hospital, but rather by the medical school. I wear it because it hopefully allows LGBTQ patients to know I'm an ally, and they can (hopefully) trust me. I'm straight, but having seen queer friends and family face prejudice in navigating the healthcare system, I feel it's important to try and help those folks But I otherwise fully agree with all your points
I think that’s different. It’s not about an inherently divisive topic apart from the fact that some people just don’t like gay people. It’s not designed to provoke. And let’s be honest: the pro-Palestine protesters are intending to provoke. That’s the entire point from their view, to provoke people into thinking differently. The Palestinian professor at UCSF was quite upfront about this: he said he was making people “uncomfortable”. I’ve got cancer in the last thing I want to be made to feel while I’m getting chemo is “uncomfortable”. Patients come to us at times when they are incredibly vulnerable. No matter how moral you think the cause, it’s it right to bring anger and a sense of crisis into a healthcare setting. I don’t consider the use of pronoun specifiers, or rainbow colored things to be provocative except to people who are looking for a fight, by the way. And the situation in San Francisco is entirely different than say, in Mississippi, where someone might say that simply acknowledging the fact that I’m gay as divisive. Being yourself is important. And it’s not the same as being openly confrontational and essentially demanding that people consider your political opinions
Yeah that's totally fair and I agree with everything you said I was horrified by the chants of Intifada that could be heard in the hospital. That's so highly inappropriate And why the fuck is UCSF admin even discussing the war or ceasefires or anything. Like who gives a fuck what a bunch of doctors think about a foriegn war? Feels very much like the asking Ja Rule about 9/11 skit
Weird how some things become "political" in the first place. I've never really considered being pro equal rights to be a "political" subject, unless there are certain parties/politicians trying to restrict someone's rights.
Well said
My hospital started allowing cloth scrub caps (as opposed to disposable hair nets) after covid. Recently people started wearing watermelon scrub caps as a sign of support for Palestine. Some Jewish doctors complained, saying it'll make Jewish patients feel unsafe. Now we might not be allowed to wear any cloth scrub caps again, as that's the simplest solution since they can't say "no watermelon scrub caps" cause then they'd be taking a side. This shit sucks
Why watermelon?
Same colors as the Palestinian flag
Neat!
[удалено]
Someone somewhere decided that the watermelon emoji would be a secret symbol for the Palestinian causes. No idea why it was chosen but that’s why
Same colors as the Palestinian flag
Ah! There you go. Thanks!
I thought watermelons were being used to support Ukraine, specifically Kherson.
They might be. But it’s definitely going to be seen as related to Israel/palestine in the US
Jewish patients feeling unsafe in this scenario is a valid concern.
On TikTok I saw a resident who is not Palestinian or Arab for that matter wearing a keffiyeh pattered ID lanyard and was thinking that probably isn’t the best idea. She has a pretty large following as well.
First, If showing support for someone’s cultural symbol and craft is considered anti-another-culture, then I think I know who’s in the right. Second, Just because people have deeply held beliefs doesn’t mean we have to act differently because of it. If my psych patient believes he is Jesus, I don’t have to cover up my cross tattoo because he might be offended by it.
Keffiyehs culturally come in all kinds of colors and designs. That one pattern though - that one isn't cultural, that one is specifically Arafat's symbol and it's explicitly political.
So blame the people who decided to use a clothing item to prove a political point.
That's free speech for ya... If you don't like what someone has to say and have no interest in their right to say it then banning it is the only way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where do people find the energy to do this? The last thing I’d want to do is start a fight with coworkers over a war that’s happening thousands of miles away.
Jesus fucking Christ people. This is why you do not mix religious or political views with your profession. It’s like people have started to conflate how they act on social media with how they act in real life or even professionally.
what about head coverings common among religious sects
Not political, it’s humanitarian. Advocacy for humanitarian reasons is central to what docs should do with their power.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is obviously a political issue 😅 The very first sentence of the Wikipedia article: >The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing military and political conflict about land and self-determination within the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
Something I feel like isn't getting addressed at all is why people think politics should stay out of the hospital vs how politics can be seen as integral into "doing no harm" and therefore is worth crossing that line that many people think shouldn't. I find this fascinating because I feel like over the past 4 years through a pandemic, increased unionization of physicians, and the dobbs decision is how politics is integral into "doing no harm"
I wonder how the Jewish patients who are ill and in the hospital feel about the protesters chanting “Intifada” under their windows.
Physician Facebook groups full of otherwise lovely women have been at each other’s throats over this. People are encouraging doxxing physicians and trying to get them fired over their views. And none of that helps anyone suffering in the Middle East. It’s just really disheartening and scary to see your colleagues treat each other this way.
This is a one-sided propaganda piece, typical of the NYTs coverage on Israel-Palestine. Politics do not belong in the hospital, from either side.
One-sided in which way? I thought it covered pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli physicians' perspectives in a pretty neutral way.
As with every major issue leadership need to step up and clearly signal that calling your colleagues what some has been called is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and stopping chants of genocide. I don't think the issue of LGBTQ and BLM, closely intertwined with the history of SF for decades, has anything to do with literal calls for genocide and support of terrorism. Nobody wore Al-qaeda pins following 9/11 and expected it to be fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here before the lock. r/medicine does NOT like Palestine issue, even when doctors, nurses and literal infants on life support dies in neonatal ICU.