"Politically correct NHS to ban term ‘gay’"
Owain
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4232767.ece
The NHS has been accused of pandering to political correctness over a
proposed ban on terms including “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous
drug user”, for fear of causing offence.
Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as
“men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have
had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.
....
However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to
homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.
“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they
end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex
relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief
inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of
the Gay Police Association.
Owain
Stephen M Baines
<owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
> Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as
>“men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have
>had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.
>....
>However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to
>homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.
Yup. If the NHS wants to take steps to stop "stigmatising" us, they
could start by not banning us from donating blood or organs.
Other countries manage it.
--
Stephen M Baines
Owain
>> Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as
>> “men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have
>> had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.
> could start by not banning us from donating blood or organs.
And of course "men who have sex with men" do not necessarily have the
same needs as us homosexualists.
Different choice of beverage in the waiting room, for example.
Owain
patrick j
> And of course "men who have sex with men" do not necessarily have the
> same needs as us homosexualists.
My mum has told me about you homosexualists.
--
patrick
Stephen M Baines
wrote:
>Owain <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
>
>> And of course "men who have sex with men" do not necessarily have the
>> same needs as us homosexualists.
>
>My mum has told me about you homosexualists.
I've been told about us too, today. We were killed off when the dead
sea was flipped over.
Gregoire Kretz
> Owain <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
>
> > And of course "men who have sex with men" do not necessarily have the
> > same needs as us homosexualists.
>
> My mum has told me about you homosexualists.
Good, so you brought the cocktails then?
Greg
--
There's no indication of what we were meant to be
Sucking up to strangers, throwing wishes to the sea
[No ficus = no spam]
patrick j
> patrick j <usemyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Owain <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > And of course "men who have sex with men" do not necessarily have the
> > > same needs as us homosexualists.
> >
> > My mum has told me about you homosexualists.
>
> Good, so you brought the cocktails then?
I have to pointy little sticks.
--
patrick
paul
But is it really ... after all, the description is what it's about, it's
fully inclusive - bi, gay, a little bit, or a lot, and all those
undecided or in denial. It's used whenever needed in many formal and
scientific papers and reports too, but must admit I was somewhat
befuddled first seeing it in print.
--
paul (C) © 2008 is mine
beholder, eye of ... perspective, point of ...
http://www.watman.clara.co.uk/horns_of_a_dilemma.html
Lyn David Thomas
I think this is one of those stories where the wrong end of the stick
has been taken, it is a descriptive term used to cover a wide range of
men and describes activities and behaviour rather than orientation.
--
\/ Lyn David Thomas
Stephen M Baines
But it also excludes a group of men that don't have sex with men, who
are gay. There used to be one in this very parish, IIRC.
Jon Usenet Wombat
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:38:37 GMT, Lyn David Thomas
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:09 Owain <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Politically correct NHS to ban term 'gay'"
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4232767.ece
>>>>
>>>> The NHS has been accused of pandering to political correctness over a
>>>> proposed ban on terms including "gay", "prostitute" and "intravenous
>>>> drug user", for fear of causing offence.
>>>> Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as
>>>> "men who have sex with men" (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have
>>>> had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.
>>I think this is one of those stories where the wrong end of the stick
>>has been taken, it is a descriptive term used to cover a wide range of
>>men and describes activities and behaviour rather than orientation.
>
> But it also excludes a group of men that don't have sex with men, who
> are gay.
And is there anything wrong with that? To me it seems like a good thing
that hospital staff should stick to unambiguous clinical terms. For
the purposes of medical treatment, only what people *do* is relevant,
not what they choose to call themselves for cultural reasons. Ambiguity
is bad in a medical context, right? And "gay" is definitely an
ambiguous term no matter what you think of its many connotations.
jon
--
_____________________ ____ ______________________________________________
With metta from: \ _/__
j...@serf.org \X / I may not be handsome but I have a PhD.
http://jon.at.serf.org \/
Stephen M Baines
wrote:
>Stephen M Baines wrote:
>> But it also excludes a group of men that don't have sex with men, who
>> are gay.
>
>And is there anything wrong with that? To me it seems like a good thing
>that hospital staff should stick to unambiguous clinical terms. For
>the purposes of medical treatment, only what people *do* is relevant,
>not what they choose to call themselves for cultural reasons. Ambiguity
>is bad in a medical context, right? And "gay" is definitely an
>ambiguous term no matter what you think of its many connotations.
Dangerous ground, though. Once you go down that route, you've got to
the same on other "cultural reasons", such as religions? How would you
describe a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim?
Kate West
"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
message news:7s5q74dm3dcb7aouf...@4ax.com...
Do you need to? If their religions require special medical considerations
(other than frontal lobotomy...) such as blood donation then that should be
noted but it's not like a Christian needs different treatment to a Muslim
for a car accident, for example. Are Jews more likely to contract cancer?
Probably not, so their religion has no bearing on their medical status.
Of course, if the NHS are doing it to try and be more PC then they should
stop immediately, just on principle :)
--
Kate
Gregoire Kretz
> Gregoire Kretz <gk...@ficusheian.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > patrick j <usemyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My mum has told me about you homosexualists.
> >
> > Good, so you brought the cocktails then?
>
> I have to pointy little sticks.
What about the pink umbrellas?
Stephen M Baines
<katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>> Dangerous ground, though. Once you go down that route, you've got to
>> the same on other "cultural reasons", such as religions? How would you
>> describe a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim?
>
>Do you need to? If their religions require special medical considerations
>(other than frontal lobotomy...) such as blood donation then that should be
>noted but it's not like a Christian needs different treatment to a Muslim
>for a car accident, for example. Are Jews more likely to contract cancer?
>Probably not, so their religion has no bearing on their medical status.
But there are certain diseases that are far more prevelant in certain
groups.
>Of course, if the NHS are doing it to try and be more PC then they should
>stop immediately, just on principle :)
Indeed.
Kate West
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:41:30 GMT, "Kate West"
> <katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>
>>> Dangerous ground, though. Once you go down that route, you've got to
>>> the same on other "cultural reasons", such as religions? How would you
>>> describe a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim?
>>
>>Do you need to? If their religions require special medical considerations
>>(other than frontal lobotomy...) such as blood donation then that should
>>be
>>noted but it's not like a Christian needs different treatment to a Muslim
>>for a car accident, for example. Are Jews more likely to contract cancer?
>>Probably not, so their religion has no bearing on their medical status.
>
> But there are certain diseases that are far more prevelant in certain
> groups.
Religious groups?
--
Kate
Stephen M Baines
<katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>message news:871r74dunq3e7tedh...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:41:30 GMT, "Kate West"
>> <katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>>
>>>> Dangerous ground, though. Once you go down that route, you've got to
>>>> the same on other "cultural reasons", such as religions? How would you
>>>> describe a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim?
>>>
>>>Do you need to? If their religions require special medical considerations
>>>(other than frontal lobotomy...) such as blood donation then that should
>>>be
>>>noted but it's not like a Christian needs different treatment to a Muslim
>>>for a car accident, for example. Are Jews more likely to contract cancer?
>>>Probably not, so their religion has no bearing on their medical status.
>>
>> But there are certain diseases that are far more prevelant in certain
>> groups.
>
>Religious groups?
Yes. Notably in religious groups that are effectively cut off from the
addition of new genes, ie ones that don't allow new blood to join the
religion, or at least not easily.
Kate West
Being from Norfolk isn't a religion... Seriously though, what religions?
Or are they sects? I'm asking out of interest, not bloody-minded
argumentitiveness. Add tivititesss as required to that :)
--
Kate
Jon Usenet Wombat
> "Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:20:00 GMT, "Kate West"
>> <katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>>>> <katewest1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>>>>>> Dangerous ground, though. Once you go down that route, you've got to
>>>>>> the same on other "cultural reasons", such as religions? How would
>>>>>> you describe a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim?
>>>>>Do you need to? If their religions require special medical
>>>>>considerations
>>>>>(other than frontal lobotomy...) such as blood donation then that
>>>>>should be
>>>>>noted but it's not like a Christian needs different treatment to a
>>>>>Muslim
>>>>>for a car accident, for example. Are Jews more likely to contract
>>>>>cancer?
>>>>>Probably not, so their religion has no bearing on their medical status.
>>>> But there are certain diseases that are far more prevelant in certain
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>>Religious groups?
>>
>> Yes. Notably in religious groups that are effectively cut off from the
>> addition of new genes, ie ones that don't allow new blood to join the
>> religion, or at least not easily.
>
> Being from Norfolk isn't a religion... Seriously though, what religions?
> Or are they sects? I'm asking out of interest, not bloody-minded
> argumentitiveness. Add tivititesss as required to that :)
I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
and which diseases?
Stephen M Baines
> Kate West wrote:
>> "Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>>> Yes. Notably in religious groups that are effectively cut off from the
>>> addition of new genes, ie ones that don't allow new blood to join the
>>> religion, or at least not easily.
>> Being from Norfolk isn't a religion... Seriously though, what religions?
>> Or are they sects? I'm asking out of interest, not bloody-minded
>> argumentitiveness. Add tivititesss as required to that :)
>
> I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
> and which diseases?
Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
example.
http://rarediseases.about.com/od/geneticdisorders/a/doryeshorim.htm
That link gives a few examples, Tay-Sachs disease, Canavan disease,
Fanconi anemia, Neimann-Pick disease, and Gaucher disease are all more
common in Ashkenazi Jews.
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
Kate West
"Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
message news:oj7mm5-...@ascari.gasny.homeip.net...
Hmm, how interesting! Cheers for that Stephen :)
--
Kate
Gregoire Kretz
> > Kate West wrote:
>
> > I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
> > and which diseases?
>
> Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
> few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
> example.
Wasn't there also something with that Moon cult, where inbreeding was
more prevalent than on the rest of the planet since they allowed people
of the same family to marry?
Jon Usenet Wombat
> Stephen M Baines <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Kate West wrote:
>>
>> > I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
>> > and which diseases?
>>
>> Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
>> few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
>> example.
>
> Wasn't there also something with that Moon cult, where inbreeding was
> more prevalent than on the rest of the planet since they allowed people
> of the same family to marry?
Still, cults and sects aren't actually the same thing as religions.
J.
Stephen M Baines
> Gregoire Kretz wrote:
>
>> Stephen M Baines <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Kate West wrote:
>>>> I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
>>>> and which diseases?
>>> Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
>>> few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
>>> example.
>> Wasn't there also something with that Moon cult, where inbreeding was
>> more prevalent than on the rest of the planet since they allowed people
>> of the same family to marry?
>
> Still, cults and sects aren't actually the same thing as religions.
Semantics. Cults and sects are just bonkers beliefs that aren't
recognised by the state, as opposed to religions that are, surely?
BGN
<use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
>>>>> and which diseases?
>>>> Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
>>>> few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
>>>> example.
>>> Wasn't there also something with that Moon cult, where inbreeding was
>>> more prevalent than on the rest of the planet since they allowed people
>>> of the same family to marry?
>>
>> Still, cults and sects aren't actually the same thing as religions.
>
>Semantics. Cults and sects are just bonkers beliefs that aren't
>recognised by the state, as opposed to religions that are, surely?
Yup.
A cult where people think that canabalism is okay by pretending that
bread = body and wine = blood is surely fucked up, isn't it? It just
a cult which caught on.
--
-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: nickm...@spamcop.net
-- Triumph Tiger 955i -- http://www.bgn.me.uk -- Touch -
-- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11
Jon Usenet Wombat
> Jon Usenet Wombat wrote:
>>> Stephen M Baines <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Kate West wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>>>>>> But there are certain diseases that are far more prevelant in certain
>>>>>> groups.
>>>>> Religious groups?
>>>>>> "Stephen M Baines" <use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote
>>>>>> Yes. Notably in religious groups that are effectively cut off from
the
>>>>>> addition of new genes, ie ones that don't allow new blood to join the
>>>>>> religion, or at least not easily.
...
>>>>> I'd like to know too. What religions are you talking about,
>>>>> and which diseases?
>>>> Sorry, not deliberately avoiding answering, just been a tad busy for a
>>>> few weeks. The ones that spring to mind are in some Jewish sects, for
>>>> example.
>>> Wasn't there also something with that Moon cult, where inbreeding was
>>> more prevalent than on the rest of the planet since they allowed people
>>> of the same family to marry?
>>
>> Still, cults and sects aren't actually the same thing as religions.
>
> Semantics. Cults and sects are just bonkers beliefs that aren't
> recognised by the state, as opposed to religions that are, surely?
And is it this semantic difference that led you to switch
from using the term "religion" and "religious groups" to
"Jewish sects"?
And since you linked to a page about Ashkenazi jews, and
called them a sect, aren't you calling them bonkers now?
If so I begin to see why you might think the NHS is too
politically correct.
Personally I still think the NHS should stay away from recording
ambiguous cultural terms. If the patient belongs to a medically
relevant cultural group it should be their responsibility to
volunteer that information if they wish to.
Stephen M Baines
> Stephen M Baines wrote:
>>> Still, cults and sects aren't actually the same thing as religions.
>> Semantics. Cults and sects are just bonkers beliefs that aren't
>> recognised by the state, as opposed to religions that are, surely?
>
> And is it this semantic difference that led you to switch
> from using the term "religion" and "religious groups" to
> "Jewish sects"?
Common parlance and to avoid confusion. They are referred to as a Jewish
sects in every document I've seen. Who am I to argue? It depends on how
you define sect, anyway. In some definition a sect is "a bad thing" in
some just a simple division of a major religion. I know not what type of
"sect" it is. I know not enough about it. I never claim to have.
> And since you linked to a page about Ashkenazi jews, and
> called them a sect, aren't you calling them bonkers now?
No. I said I think their beliefs are bonkers. I think the same of most,
if not all, religions. The people are generally lovely and rational,
they just belief in things that are odd. There is a huge distinction.
Cultural memes are very influential things.
Robert Marshall
> Personally I still think the NHS should stay away from recording
> ambiguous cultural terms. If the patient belongs to a medically
> relevant cultural group it should be their responsibility to
> volunteer that information if they wish to.
>
>
Though the NHS still has chaplaincies for various religions and it
isn't always possible for you to signal your arrival in hospital in
advance if you wish to have visits from those folks
It's not medically revelant but it may have something to do with the
recovery of the people concerned. You may wish to view it as putting
them in a more positive frame of mind. I'd give it more value but it
is IMHO stil a good reason for patients to beable to volunteer
ambiguous cultural terms ;-)
Robert
--
La grenouille songe..dans son chāteau d'eau
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/