At the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing last Thursday, Democrats passed a bill to require federal health officials to question anyone seeking services from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) community health centers or other programs about their sexual orientation and “gender identity.”
We have all sorts of boxes for patient information where I work - I was told once that the hospital got paid for filling out extra information such as ethnicity, religion, occupation etc.
Bit wrong if you ask me. Kind of like asking applicants for jobs what their ethnicity is so that you don't descriminate against them... based on their ethnicity...
I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?
BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS just like race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?
Corrected your typo.
Again they have no business collecting information, at all. What about freaking client/patient privilege?
BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?
I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment. Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevent. Your religious views are also largely irrelevent unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc).
You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.
This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.
'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'
Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?
Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?
The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.
My personal feelings on this though, is that the government has no business legislating like this. Then again though, the government has no business legislating a lot of what it does, but it's not like that stops them.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?
I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment. Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevent. Your religious views are also largely irrelevent unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc).
You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.
This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Knee-jerk reaction as per, Frazzled.
'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'
Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?
Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?
Wait, I already know the answer to that one.
Nonsense. My (a patient's) right to privacy trumps do gooder bs data gathering.
In the US the patient/client privilege is a big deal. Its extremely hard to breach even in criminal jury trials.
djones520 wrote:The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.
Various groups have higher risks from certain illnesses, however, there is no screening in place (that I am aware of) whereby members of said groups are brought in for testing more regularly than those considered "less at risk".
Signs and symptoms of illnesses are the same no matter what kind of people you share your bed with or what colour your skin is.
djones520 wrote:The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.
Various groups have higher risks from certain illnesses, however, there is no screening in place (that I am aware of) whereby members of said groups are brought in for testing more regularly than those considered "less at risk".
Signs and symptoms of illnesses are the same no matter what kind of people you share your bed with or what colour your skin is.
Which is why I think it's BS. Look, I would bet that the reason this was put out there was because of exactly what I referenced. Since their at higher risk, they want to be able to ask them their orientations so they can put tests out there based apon it. But again, I find myself asking, why is that the governments business? It is the government trying to take the personal responsibility away from the individual.
If you like bloody butt secks with multiple partners, then it should be YOU getting tests. It shouldn't have to be the nanny-state figuring it out for you.
Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.
Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.
Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.
I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK there are lots of drop in sexual health clinics (though they don't go out of their way to advertise where they are from what I am aware) where they don't ask and you don't have to tell. You just drop trousers, take the test and either wait or come back for the results.
There are plenty of other locations you can get tested out for a host of other illnesses. I know that pharmacies here will do various allergy screens as well as tests for diabetes (which has, incidentallly, a 70% higher risk rate in the African American population than in the White American population).
As you mentioned and I understand, the information can be used for positive things, but as with pretty much everything, will probably just sit there are be used by government statisticians and/or sold off for human monies.
OF course, I'm not sure it's even worth pointing out the incredibly misleading nature of both that article and this post. A bill wasn't passed, an amendment was approved by a subcommittee. The sort of thing that happens all the time in congress.
In addition, there is some value to this. Knowing how LBGT people are being treated in relation to "straight" is valuable, as many health providers don't have any real training in those areas.
Polonius wrote:OF course, I'm not sure it's even worth pointing out the incredibly misleading nature of both that article and this post. A bill wasn't passed, an amendment was approved by a subcommittee. The sort of thing that happens all the time in congress.
In addition, there is some value to this. Knowing how LBGT people are being treated in relation to "straight" is valuable, as many health providers don't have any real training in those areas.
Why should they be treated differantly? Like I said, if the LBGT community has concerns about their sexual practices have effects to their health, it should be them bringing it up to their doctor. Not the doctor being forced by big brother to fish around for information that may have nothing to do with anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK there are lots of drop in sexual health clinics (though they don't go out of their way to advertise where they are from what I am aware) where they don't ask and you don't have to tell. You just drop trousers, take the test and either wait or come back for the results.
There are plenty of other locations you can get tested out for a host of other illnesses. I know that pharmacies here will do various allergy screens as well as tests for diabetes (which has, incidentallly, a 70% higher risk rate in the African American population than in the White American population).
As you mentioned and I understand, the information can be used for positive things, but as with pretty much everything, will probably just sit there are be used by government statisticians and/or sold off for human monies.
Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.
Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.
Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.
Lol.
If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.
And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.
djones520 wrote:Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.
Hence "I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK"
I was not comparing anything, I was just saying what things are like here.
Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.
Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.
Lol.
If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.
And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.
Like the slam there Polonius. Good to see you remain constant.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Again, its my privacy, and not the governemnt's business. Its especially not the government's business to ask children anything.
Albatross wrote:Knee-jerk reaction as per, Frazzled.
'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'
Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?
Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?
Wait, I already know the answer to that one.
Nonsense. My (a patient's) right to privacy trumps do gooder bs data gathering.
So 'yes', then. Just as I suspected.
People like you are bad for conservativism. Listen to the language you use - you are using 'do good' as a pejorative. That's just moronic. As civilised people, we should be TRYING to do good, instead of revelling in how intransigent and small-minded we are. It's like you're proud of your ignorance. When did THAT become the 'American Way'?
There was a time when being 'American' was synonymous with vision, forward-thinking and 'can-do' spirit. Something to be rightly envied. This new brand of American conservatism espoused by Palin et al. has hijacked 'Americanism' and turned it 360 degrees to mean myopia, parochialism and 'won't do' spirit. Just naked opposition purely for the sake of it. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is branded as 'un-American'.
Collecting demographic information on sexuality could potentially be very useful for tracking trends in sexual health, and ultimately providing targeted health information for specific groups that are more likely to be at risk from certain diseases or conditions. Your internet provider already does a similar thing with advertising. You don't mind companies with little public accountability knowing personal stuff about you, but the government (who are accountable) doing it is a step too far? Are you one of the buffoons who protested against the census? Also, starting open discussion on sexuality early is a good thing, as it helps to de-mystify and destigmatise alernate lifestyles, meaning that LGBT people might be more willing to seek advice on certain issues.
None of this adds up to a 'bad thing' as far as I can see.
Good is good.
You just seem to be against this because someone told you to be.
Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.
Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.
Lol.
If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.
And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.
Like the slam there Polonius. Good to see you remain constant.
Can I get a judge's rulling on this? Unless "slam" is now defined as "pointing out when Frazz misspeaks," all I was doing is pointing out that while you have every right to say what you think your rights are, there are courts and judges and books of law that are probably a more reliable source for planning.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Again, its my privacy, and not the governemnt's business. Its especially not the government's business to ask children anything.
Ah, the 10th amendment. Last refuge of the damned.
Find me case law that shows that it means, you know, anything, and we can talk. It still doesn't matter, because Congress has, as an enumerated power, the power the tax and spend for the general welfare. So while congress can't (at least in theory) pass a law requiring everybody in america wear a pork pie hat, it could pass a law buying everybody in America a pork pie hat (and if enough dems are from the garment district, they just might).
So, if congress is paying for health care (which it has been for years now, so lets not all blame obamacare), it can tell people what's what. As one court opined in a first amendment case: "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune."
djones520 wrote:Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.
Is it also worth pointing out that we have been asking questions about gender for a long time now, if not overtly?
Those little check-boxes with the words 'male' and 'female' next to them have been around for some time.
Moreover, since kids can't sign definitive documentation, potentially attesting to their 'official' sexuality, all that is being collected is information regarding what child X happens to think that he is when asked. Its potentially interesting data regarding the mental health of children as it correlates with ideas regarding sexuality.
Whilst in an ideal world this would be the case, the way things are at the moment the information is just not being used to the fullest extent to positively effect people. For example, there is lots of information on how different racial groups are blessed or cursed with different rates of certain diseases. This information is not exactly new but as yet (as far as I am aware) there is no screening program or intense social action (posters on buses doesn't really count) to ensure that as many cases are caught early in "high risk" social groups as possible.
Conversely there are been a number of stories over the last few years about doctors not screening young women for cervical cancer who subsequently died or who became very ill because they fell outside the "at risk" age range.
Anyone who comes to recieve healthcare should recieve it where appropriate (if it quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is probably a duck even if it is flying somewhere you don't usually find ducks). There should also be programs which reach out to high risk groups and screen them regularly (obviously people can choose not to partake, you can't force people to do anything).
The point being that additional information can be used well but currently is not. The other point being that you don't always need additional information if someone comes to you with symptoms or wanting testing.
part of me is also curious if the Conservative movement, perhaps not the enthusiastic supporters of gay rights in this country, are just concerned that gathering this information could help LGBT folks, or even by collecting enough data lead to a better understanding of how prevalent they are in society.
Then I wake up and realize that conservatives would never allow such prejudice to cloud their views, and I'm simply living in a paranoid fantasy....
Polonius wrote:part of me is also curious if the Conservative movement, perhaps not the enthusiastic supporters of gay rights in this country, are just concerned that gathering this information could help LGBT folks, or even by collecting enough data lead to a better understanding of how prevalent they are in society.
Then I wake up and realize that conservatives would never allow such prejudice to cloud their views, and I'm simply living in a paranoid fantasy....
Its enlightening why ther Liberal movement would be ok with this invasion of patients' particularly childrens' personal privacy.
I'm not seeing anything in the article to support the idea that people will, hypothetically, be forced to respond to a question about sexuality in the event that the amendment is passed.
Statistics like this, in order to receive federal IRB certification, always have to include 'no response' options.
Polonius wrote:part of me is also curious if the Conservative movement, perhaps not the enthusiastic supporters of gay rights in this country, are just concerned that gathering this information could help LGBT folks, or even by collecting enough data lead to a better understanding of how prevalent they are in society.
Then I wake up and realize that conservatives would never allow such prejudice to cloud their views, and I'm simply living in a paranoid fantasy....
Its enlightening why ther Liberal movement would be ok with this invasion of patients' particularly childrens' personal privacy.
Yeah, the law requires providers to ask, not patients to answer.
Although part of me would love to swing through the red states and find out how many of those bible toting red blooded Americans are on the downlow. There is literally no number high enough to shock me.
Polonius wrote:part of me is also curious if the Conservative movement, perhaps not the enthusiastic supporters of gay rights in this country, are just concerned that gathering this information could help LGBT folks, or even by collecting enough data lead to a better understanding of how prevalent they are in society.
Then I wake up and realize that conservatives would never allow such prejudice to cloud their views, and I'm simply living in a paranoid fantasy....
Its enlightening why ther Liberal movement would be ok with this invasion of patients' particularly childrens' personal privacy.
Henners91 wrote:Maybe there's some of that good ol' "Gay guys are more likely to catch AIDs" going down?
That's part of it, to be sure. Just being homosexual doesn't' make you more susceptible to AIDS, but there's a high correlation between being a homosexual (or practicing bisexual) male and behaviors that do increase odds of HIV infection: unprotected anal sex with lots of partners.
In particular the Gender ID question is going to only become more of an issue. A female identified biological male isn't just a crossdresser, but a person with a gender distinct from their physical equipment. Health providers could probably use that info to help treat patients.
Frazzled wrote:Again they have no business collecting information, at all. What about freaking client/patient privilege?
By your extremely adventurous definition of client patient privilege, it'd be a breach for a hospital to report on how many knee operations it performed last month. Client patient privilege limits the release of information with the client's name attached, everything else is you being dramatic about something because the Democrats did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:People like you are bad for conservativism. Listen to the language you use - you are using 'do good' as a pejorative. That's just moronic. As civilised people, we should be TRYING to do good, instead of revelling in how intransigent and small-minded we are. It's like you're proud of your ignorance. When did THAT become the 'American Way'?
Goldwater, more or less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Um, the UK has both public and private options.
The healthcare debate went on for about six months, and had been moving along on the backburner for ten years for that, arguably longer, and comparisons to UK healthcare were made throughout that. Yet so many people opposed to healthcare reform still have no idea how healthcare works anywhere else. It's amazing, really.
It's also important to keep in mind the difference between information being protected by privacy laws, and by a privilege.
Privileged information is not allowed to be used in court. It cant' be subpoenaed, or testified to, or allowed in even if it's known. Privileges are also not all the same. Attorney/Client is ironclad, Doctor/Patient is very strong (unless it's a therapist), Priest/Pentitent is absolute, and spousal only applies to conversations, not to witnessed events.
Privileges were established under the common law and have been since codified into federal and state Rules of Evidence.
Health information is private, not due to a privilege, but because federal law made it private. So, a doctor's office can't tell people who got what treatment. I'm sure Doctors and other health professionals are all bound to professional ethics rules that prevent them from blabbing, but the long and short of it is that there is a difference between the privacy acts, ethical rules, and evidentiary privileges.
Polonius wrote:Yeah, the law requires providers to ask, not patients to answer.
Although part of me would love to swing through the red states and find out how many of those bible toting red blooded Americans are on the downlow. There is literally no number high enough to shock me.
I hope there's an option 'are you a formerly prominent anti-gay campaigner who was caught doing blow off of a rent boy's ass?'
Because there's places where that would be a statistically significant population.
I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
Polonius wrote:Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.
Scary stuff right there. This whole notion of "The goverment giveth and the government taketh away" is far too prevalent today. This is also at odds with the views of the founders of our country, who simply recognized that God had granted men the right to life, liberty, property and privacy. They merely acknowledge that right.
Polonius wrote:If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.
More of this government worship?!? I beg your pardon but the Fed has NOT always been able to do that. It's only relatively recently that the Fed has started wiping it's ass with the privacy and rights of the citizens.
Polonius wrote:
And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.
Eh... last time I checked we lived in a Republic. Y'know, that thing that protects the rights of the few against the will of the masses by restrictions of law?
I see a new constitutional scholar has entered the ring.
Ok, first, how is the government asking for information a violation of privacy? Requiring it would be. Sharing it with names attached would be. Collecting it for statistical purposes while anonymous doesn't violate any form of privacy.
Secondly, the governmental laws that made medical records private actually violated rights: the right to share people's private matters with others. There is no general right to privacy in the constitution, and the constitution (aside from the 13th amendment) never speaks against public action. Medical privacy laws actually created rights for people: the right to have privacy in medical matters, even from non-governmental sources.
As an act of Congress, HIPPA can be overturned by congress. That doesn't mean government can go rooting through your medical records without cause, but it would mean that the billing specialist could tell everybody how got surgery without violating federal law.
I dont' think it's government worship to acknowledge the enumerated powers of congress. It also has had the ability to tax and spend as it saw fit. Unlike it's legislative power (which was originally narrow), the spending power was always "for the general welfare," which means whatever they want. If they want to spend money with conditions, that's A-Ok by the founders.
And yes, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, while the first major violations of constitutional rights, is relatively recent.
I'm not even sure what your last point means, other than to say that you're angry about something. I do expect to see you and Frazz at the next ACLU meeting defending the rights of minorities, however.
There is a mechanism for the protection of rights. We have it, and it's called jurisprudence. This is why wearing a black armband is considered speech, and RVs are considered cars and not homes under the 4th amendment. There are a lot of questions, and we have a lot of answers. I think that in general the rights of the few are pretty staunchly defended in the country.
The Green Git wrote:Eh... last time I checked we lived in a Republic. Y'know, that thing that protects the rights of the few against the will of the masses by restrictions of law?
Umm, 'Republic' just means you don't have a king. People keep imagining these magical other properties onto the term, but that's basically what it is.
You probably mean 'constitutional representative democracy'.
Honestly Seb, virtually nobody in the US has any idea how their government actually works. They focus on slogans and talking points over underpinnings and realities.
Polonius wrote:Honestly Seb, virtually nobody in the US has any idea how their government actually works. They focus on slogans and talking points over underpinnings and realities.
This thread is an odd one. I mean, it isn't as though the US doesn't have plenty of real problems to worry about... but here's people inventing this whole issue over an option to answer a tick box question, and they're framing it as though it was the cornerstone of their liberty. It's just weird.
If I were a paranoid person with little respect for the right wing, I would assume it's simply a combination of Democrats doing something, anything, and the potential to help and/or legitimize queer citizens.
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
I wish I had the links here, but chances are the "people that would know" aren't indulging in hyperbole. I recently read some interesting pop-science article about the sexual habits of women/girls as it related to body-type. It turned out that overweight white girls and skinny black girls both engaged in less sexual activity overall, but more risky activity when they did get laid. The authors went on to hypothesize that because these body types weren't considered attractive in their respective communities, they had motivation to put out more. And let's face it, sex with random strangers at a truck stop in Texas sounds both incredibly risky and like it's probably book-ending a dry-spell, whereas Joe at the front desk of the bath-house has probably reminded you that they're running yet another AIDS preventation seminar, and that if you don't have any condoms then you can grab a handleful from the fishbowl on the front desk kept there to try and discourage bare-backing. In other words the dudes you find a truck stops will be the desperate sex-starved closeted types who'll fark you no questions asked, whereas the most of the dudes at the bath-house will be regulars who know each other (yes, pun intended) and will be pickier about things like dress sense, looks, and hygiene.
I'm pretty sure that any form or questionnaire I ever filled out gave me the option to not answer any of the demographic questions if I didn't want to. I guess it kind of makes sense if you think they're going to compile statistics about diseases and health issues that are more prevalent in the gay community.
From someone who deals with this on a daily basis it is incredibly relevant.
The Gay community has a lot higher chance of contracting AIDS, therefor if you know that a person is gay and the are promiscuous you might want to educate them a little more.
It is actually medically relevant what your preference is...
ShivanAngel wrote:From someone who deals with this on a daily basis it is incredibly relevant.
The Gay community has a lot higher chance of contracting AIDS, therefor if you know that a person is gay and the are promiscuous you might want to educate them a little more.
It is actually medically relevant what your preference is...
Accusation of homophobia in 5... 4... 3... 2...
I agree with you, but boy do some people get pissy when you bring that up.
I think the problem is that someone ticking "I'm gay" on a form is not going to stop them from catching STI's, nor is it going to mean that if they come in to the doctors with some unrelated problem they are automatically checked for them (which is relatively discriminatory in of itself) without significant change to the health system any more than checking "African American" will mean you get a diabetes test every time you go to the doctors.
Be great if it did, but all it is is box ticking (quite literally in this case). Yet another piece of information the government doesn't need.
Do gays want to be treated equally? Do they want to be acknowledged as legit and not deviant or underground? Then they should want to be recognized. I see this as a step towards equality personally, almost a validation. Sure it could be abused, but so can knowledge regardless of whether it's been written on a form or not. Example, a bad cop will abuse laws regardless of what laws exist and a good one will not.
Well, unless the government is interested in tracking health trends across demographics.
We know that african americans are more likely to suffer certain conditions because of extensive sampling of demographic medical data. AIDS was famously initially called GRID (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency) because a doctor connected the symptoms with sexuality.
The point is, anonymous data can be useful for tracking trends across demographic groups. It can also be used to see what kind of care each group is receiving.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Do gays want to be treated equally? Do they want to be acknowledged as legit and not deviant or underground? Then they should want to be recognized. I see this as a step towards equality personally, almost a validation. Sure it could be abused, but so can knowledge regardless of whether it's been written on a form or not. Example, a bad cop will abuse laws regardless of what laws exist and a good one will not.
Personally, I think this is the crux of the matter. It's less an invasion of privacy than it is an acknowledgment by the government that LGBT individuals exist.
A nice compromise might be if you check "yes" on the box that asks if you're sexually active, then you have a box to clarify in. That way no "invasion of privacy," but still gives the info doctors might need.
Actually, the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases is higher with the population known as MSM or "Men who have sex with men" (cue jokes about the mainstream media..). Not all of these men identify as "Gay". I think one could reasonably say that "Gay" is a type of "MSM", as in the men who are open about their desire to have sex with other men, and only want to have sex with other men. Not all men who have sex with other men only want to have sex with men; some of them also like to have sex with women. Not all men who have sex with other men will admit to it, even some of those that only want to have sex with other men.
Between the bisexual guys and the closest cases, we have one avenue of disease transmission into the 'straight' population, who already have their own promiscuous sub-communities (themselves larger than the 1-3% of the non-straight community) such as intravenous drug users* and swingers.
Take the whole "gays are going to have more unprotected anal sex", which by and by is probably true if we compare rates in both the heterosexual populations and homo/bisexual populations. If we compare raw numbers, however, unprotected sex (anal, vaginal, and even oral - go syphilis!) amongst heterosexual populations is more prevalent. It's like Warhammer: Gays may fail those saves at a higher rate, but there's simply more straight people rolling dice.
*Include crack and meth users in this group for the purposes of drug use alone constituting a major risk factor.
So is everyone still upset over a bill that wasn't even passed (just went out of committee) to ask a question that isn't required to be answered of people using government funded services? The title of the thread is extraordinarily misleading but and I can't help but wonder if that wasn't intentional.
Ahtman wrote:So is everyone still upset over a bill that wasn't even passed (just went out of committee) to ask a question that isn't required to be answered of people using government funded services? The title of the thread is extraordinarily misleading but and I can't help but wonder if that wasn't intentional.
Apparently it violates some sort of right that nobody can identify, for reasons nobody can explain.
Ahtman wrote:So is everyone still upset over a bill that wasn't even passed (just went out of committee) to ask a question that isn't required to be answered of people using government funded services? The title of the thread is extraordinarily misleading but and I can't help but wonder if that wasn't intentional.
Apparently it violates some sort of right that nobody can identify, for reasons nobody can explain.
If it was mandatory I could see it violating one's right to privacy.
The Green Git wrote:This is also at odds with the views of the founders of our country, who simply recognized that God had granted men the right to life, liberty, property and privacy. They merely acknowledge that right.
They also believed that the State must infringe upon those rights in certain circumstances, which is why they wrote the Constitution to provide for the rule of law.
The Green Git wrote:
Eh... last time I checked we lived in a Republic. Y'know, that thing that protects the rights of the few against the will of the masses by restrictions of law?
Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Just as Democracy and Monarchy are not mutually exclusive terms. A Republic is any state that lacks a hereditary sovereign. A Democracy is any state in which the majority of people are provided with the franchise.
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?
What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?
Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?
What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?
Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?
This is where you start getting into trouble, I think. Just some friendly advice. I think you have a lot of intelligent things to say, just try not to get so mad about stuff.
That said: I think painting all conservatives as homophobes was what Fraz was referring to.
Because posting a link to a highly partisan news source, and then putting the misleading title of the article as the thread title is completely indistinguishable from trolling.
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse. That's probably hyperbole, but it does explain the biggest mystery to me: why social conservatives get so riled up about queer issues. At least racism had an economic and political upside, but homophobia really seems to come from a more personal place.
Tell me when you quit slandering entire groups and portions of the country, yet you live in Ohio?
What was slander? And what does Ohio have to do with it?
Are you really that pathetic that you need to imagine personal insults?
You consistently make comments about social conservatives or Southerners.
Social conservatives get riled up about homosexuality, that's simply a true statement. The statement regarding the ease soliciting sex may or not be true, but is only slanderous if you think that easy access to sex is a bad quality for a given location to have. I guess you could take issue with the racism comment, but its not as though Polonius actually called social conservatives racists. In fact he insinuated only that its a significant issue for them as a group, which is also true.
It seems pretty simple to say that it would be wrong to require adults to answer, but that it isn't wrong to merely ask them (assuming it's clear that they can decline to answer).
With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).
Orkeosaurus wrote:With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).
It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet. Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I was "talking" to Polonius at a truck stop not too long ago and he seemed pretty reasonable.
Polonius wrote:I've heard from "people that would know" that claim it's easier to get homosexual sex at a Texas truck stop than a San Francisco bathhouse.
Orkeosaurus wrote:With children it's not necessarily as straightforward, since it's generally accepted that children cannot choose to fully alienate their own privacy (hence child pornography laws, and such). However, in this case I think it would be fine to collect such data on children at least 16-17 years old if the data wasn't anonymous, and data on children at least 14-15 years if it is (which, it seems, would be the case in this instance). When young children start getting asked such questions by a state agency there may be more room for objection (I think there would, at least, need to be a specific reason to do so. Not just because it may be "useful" in some unspecified manner).
It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet. Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).
Off-Topic: Frazzled, what were those three Gallery Votes you actually did make before becoming a more "useful" member of the community by bunking down in the Off Topic forum?
Laughing Man wrote:It's probably fair to say that they won't be asking prepubescent children their sexuality, considering their libidos haven't kicked in yet.
That would seem most likely, especially as it would be quite a bit more likely to raise objections from parents and such.
Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).
Accuracy wouldn't be my primary concern here; privacy would be. (Although accuracy would have to be taken into account too, for the data to be used meaningfully.)
House Democrats didn't pass anything - "House Democrats" means all the members of the house of representatives, not some subset in a committee. It hasn't been voted on anywhere important. Why are you writing a title that implies that it was passed by the House, as opposed to just passed out of committee?
Why does the title just say "to ask school children about sexual preference" when the reality is "to ask all users of HHS services about sexual preference" (in the already existing entirely voluntary questionaire)?
I can understand if you want to say that the government shouldn't even ask people questions, and that may be an interesting discussion...but instead it's just sensationalist bullcrap.
Frazzled wrote:
At the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing last Thursday, Democrats passed a bill to require federal health officials to question anyone seeking services from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) community health centers or other programs about their sexual orientation and “gender identity.”
WarOne wrote:Off-Topic: Frazzled, what were those three Gallery Votes you actually did make before becoming a more "useful" member of the community by bunking down in the Off Topic forum?
Pictures of converted JgdTigers to Vanquisher tanks.
No they were Vanqs. King Tiner body, with some tweeks and imperial bits (including an IG driver's head sticking out of the driver's hatch) and Forgeworld Vanq turrent. They were quite good.
Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).
Accuracy wouldn't be my primary concern here; privacy would be. (Although accuracy would have to be taken into account too, for the data to be used meaningfully.)
I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well. Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.
As for accuracy, that would seem to be more an issue of trusting the person being asked the question. Being transgendered is a matter of personal opinion anyhow, so asking how the subject self-identifies is still the most accurate option available.
Laughing Man wrote:
I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well. Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.
I mean, the only reason you can reasonably assume that survey research data won't be used to compromise privacy is the existence of the Office for Human Research Protections, which is a Federal agency.
Laughing Man wrote:I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well.
That's a far more readily observable attribute, however, and generally isn't considered to be private information. At least, insofar as "ethnicity" is constrained to broad categories, rather than more detailed family history.
Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.
I never said anything would implode.
As for accuracy, that would seem to be more an issue of trusting the person being asked the question. Being transgendered is a matter of personal opinion anyhow, so asking how the subject self-identifies is still the most accurate option available.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's sufficiently accurate to base judgements off of, although I'm wondering how we got to discussing transgender in the first place.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's sufficiently accurate to base judgements off of, although I'm wondering how we got to discussing transgender in the first place.
OP mentions gender identity, which generally refers to which gender one self identifies as.
It's strange to see this exact topic here! It's like some kind of collective consciousness attack or something.
I hardly ever watch TV. I might watch approximately 5 minutes a month, tops. Japanese TV is horrible and even the English programs suck the big one (13 hours of CSI a day - uhhhh, No Thanks). Anyway, yesterday I got my 5 minutes in in 2 minute plus segments about 10 hours apart and both shows that happened to be on when I cruised into the living room were about sexual identity. Just strange. I mean, Japanese guys are a bit effeminate (men's only eyebrow razors, as an example), but this was like over the top even for them.
Really, the most interesting thing to come out of this thread is that people who claim they're not biased against homosexuals would assume they were being attacked when it was suggested it was relatively easy to get homosexual sex in truck stops in their state.
Ahtman wrote:Who are we to judge what two consenting adults want to do in a truck stop?
Because if the truck stop is a public place, we have laws that might govern how we judge these two consenting adults.
If this is a private truck stop in a private place, there might be an owner who will judge these two consenting adults if they get caught.
If one of them owns the truck stop then by all means no one should interfere with the two consenting adults.
I actually understand the reason, it was an inside joke. The person who it was for knows. Or people who read the other thread I can't remember at the moment.
SilverMK2 wrote:I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment.
So then why be outraged over this collection of demographic information and not others? The article wasn't opposed to collecting information in general, just specifically this specific information. I don't buy that this is some kind of general opposition to demographic information, not when the article goes on and on about KIDS and HOMOSEXUALITY. If you're genuinely opposed to collecting information like this, then you should complain under a thread that deals in general terms, not one about a sensationalistic article that talks about asking THE CHILDREN whether they are GAYs.
You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.
I saw in the article where they'd ask the question, I didn't see anywhere in the article (much less the actual bill) that said that patients would be required to answer in order to receive treatment, so it looks like you can refuse to give information if you want. Medical records are intended to be a complete history of treatment received and as such information generally cannot be removed from them because yanking information causes severe problems if those records later need to be used in malpractice, insurance, or legal proceedings.
Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevant. Your religious views are also largely irrelevant unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc). This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.
Sexual preference is extremely relevant when examining sexually transmitted diseases, and there are a number of other diseases that affect particular races more than others (like sickle-cell anemia). Anonymized information on diseases being passed on to researchers to study the spread of diseases is extremely useful in developing programs to treat and prevent diseases. But debate over that health issue isn't really relevant to asking "School Children about Sexual Preference", which is what the article gets indignant over.
