this is something that seems to be true with women generally: in ANY interaction that involves a man and a woman the women REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT often feels that listening to ANYTHING a male says is doing him a favor which he has to earn. So I suspect when male doctors tell women what they should do, how they should follow up, etc. the women don't take it in.

"We've seen studies recently about women getting substandard medical care and experiencing worse medical outcomes from hospital stays than men"

And I've seen studies about women getting better-than-standard treatment when it's time to allocate lifeboats on a sinking ship or negotiate the release of hostages. Not that Tracy "Bonehead" Clark-Flory would ever manage to notice that kind of obvious item, thanks to her miraculous ability to never see things which contradict her victim mentality.

It IS possible to find forms of lifesaving which do not disproportionately benefit women, but you may need a rather powerful microscope to find them. But if you want to find lifesaving which disproportionately favors women, you just need watch the evening news.

Speaking of which, some months back, TCF once made a posting entitled: "Is there sexism in lifesaving?" To that, the answer is "yes", but exactly the opposite of the way she is psychologically-dependent on believing.

TCF: by all means, carry-on being your laughably clueless self.

>surgeons of patients who ended up receiving radiology were more likely to have certain attributes, like being experienced or trained in the U.S.

Seems likely that surgeons who are female are more likely to have been trained in the US, as opposed to in a country with less opportunity for professional women.

If you wanted to show that gender of the provider actually made a difference, you'd have to show that the differences can only be explained by the variable of provider gender. The presence of another variable (training location) that could explain it, keeps you from drawing any conclusions (or it should).

"Seems likely that surgeons who are female are more likely to have been trained in the US, as opposed to in a country with less opportunity for professional women."

I don't know if it also applies to female surgeons, but a large number of the female women practicing in Northern NJ received their medical education outside of the US. A recent search for a physician on my HMO's website found many women trained in India, Russia, Korea, etc.

the gentler, more knowing, touch of a women physician. Perhaps with a button or two undone.

Depends on whether I am getting a "happy ending"

I suspect most people in this country will wind up as patients at multiple points in their lives.

However, very few people will ever be in a sinking ship, or held hostage.

The "evening news," Linney, favors the latter sorts of situations. They're exciting and unusual.

But the topic covered by Carol today may find more general applicability.

One of the biggest sources of funds and doctors for breast cancer research is.... The US Army.

Hard to imagine a more patriarchal organization....

Just sayin.

About a year ago I switched from the g.p., a man, to another g.p., a woman. I had the benefit of knowing something about her before I became her patient: She's my wife's g.p. and my wife had said good things about her. But part of what decided my switch was that she's a woman.

It wasn't like I had bad experiences with male doctors. As a kid, my family's g.p., a man who had taken care of my mother since she was a young woman, was the quintessential trusted family doctor. A real good guy and we all felt a loss when he retired.

But as I grew older, I had a couple of female specialists who were both women, and both really good. I had heard women friends say they felt listened to more by women doctors. I heard something similar from my father, a heart patient, after a couple of trips to an emergency ward for something I can't recall, but, after the problem was discovered, he said he felt the woman doctor who'd seen him had been more attentive. At a time when I didn't have a regular g.p., my wife's then g.p. got me into physical therapy hours after I'd injured myself in a decision that probably made my recuperation much faster. And then, I had a male g.p. who, after several visits over a few years, struck me as the prototypical guy who knew what was wrong before I'd barely said a thing. I finally had enough of feeling dismissed or like I was wasting his time.

My new g.p. got me to a cardiologist because of my family's history of heart disease (I wouldn't worry about that, had been my male g.p.'s take); she sent me to a specialist who told me that the method my previous g.p. had been using to treat something I had could possibly do physical damage.

Is there something general I an derive here? Given that my caridologist, gastroenterologist are both men, both attentive, both nice, maybe not. I'd never not go to a doctor because he was a man.

But it simply doesn't surprise me when I hear women say they believe women doctors listen to them instead of talk at them. That may be because it was harder for women doctors to come up and they are determined not to treat their patients the dismissive way they were. But when it comes time for me to get another g.p., I'm prejudiced. I'll be looking for a woman.

In my 20s, I was experiencing a strange pressure in my abdomen. I went to my (male) doctor. He told me it was nothing. I went back a few weeks later - the pressure was more intense. Not painful but uncomfortable. He did the same examination and told me it was nothing. Three weeks later I was back again - now I was having occasional pain. I got the same examination and was told it was nothing. I asked for an ultrasound but was told it wasn't necessary. 3 weeks later the fibroid tumor in my uterus reached the size of a grapefruit and burst, leaving me unconscious and bleeding profusely on my office floor. I was rushed to the hospital and the 'nothing' was removed - it was benign, lucky for me, given the 8 weeks of nothing being done about my nothing.

The surgeon was a woman. I asked her how this thing could have been missed after so many examinations. She replied curtly that medicine was still a man's world, and some men had difficulty dealing with 'plumbing' problems.

I was also given high-handed treatment by a male gyn when I contracted an STD in college. The doctor was condescending and judgmental.

I suppose things may be different now - we've come a long way in sensitivity training and taking women's health issues more seriously (Susan Komen's sister has a lot to do with this, starting her foundation in honor of the sister who died of breast cancer after being repeatedly un/mis-diagnosed by a male doctor who was dismissive of/ignorant about the symptoms).

I sometimes wonder if I should lighten up about this - if I'm being sexist. But I'd rather be sure I'm getting care from someone who has real empathy for my symptoms, and enough interest to ask the right follow-up questions, than ever again risk being dismissed by someone who thinks that my biology renders most of my complaints of the 'vapors and megrims' variety.