Two news stories point to the changing/challenging culture

Two stories that have captured my attention today have been about lesbians. The first is that Johanna Sigurdardottir, a long-time policy maker in Iceland’s parliament, is about to become the first openly lesbian Prime Minister of the tiny and beleaguered country.

To top it off, she is referred to by other leading politicians as ‘beloved by Icelanders’, and the only critiques seem to be coming from conservative critics who are at odds with her style of governance, which they describe as “spending and tax raises”.

Imagine. A lesbian leading an entire country and discussing issues based solely on their merits and not her sexuality. Now that’s change.

The other story comes from Canada – Winnipeg, specifically, often referred to at this bitter cold time of year as WinterPig. It seems a lesbian couple visited a medical centre in the city, and met with an Egyptian-born doctor who they claimed discriminated against them. The couple stated the doctor told them their ‘lifestyle’ was against her religion and that she had no experience treating same sex couples.

Now this is a thorny piece of sagebrush rolling across the harsh landscape of the prairies. Where to even start unraveling the finer points of this? I can just hear the argument: if the doctor in question plans to work in a Canadian health care setting, she should be aware of, and trained for, dealing with same sex partner health issues.

But given the dearth of family care physicians in this country and our need to import them from other parts of the world, can beggars afford to be choosers? How about we hire these immigrant (and highly educated & experienced) doctors, and provide training – both physical and cultural – for classes of patients they may be unfamiliar with?

As for the couple, it’s hard to tell when to really push discrimination suits. Are they helpful? Can the issue be resolved in any other way? How about the medical centre having a physician or two on the staff who are experienced and comfortable providing care to same sex couples, and allowing non-experienced/comfortable doctors to refer patients internally to them, in a professional manner?

After all, who wants an experienced and uncomfortable doctor treating them? One could argue that the wholesale acceptance has to start somewhere, but to me that would be taking a big risk and putting politics or human rights issues ahead of my own health issues. Do I really want a physician who can’t provide proper care because she simply has no experience? Can I assume that physician will do the necessary research – which may push them into areas of severe discomfort and lead to a half-assed job – in order to treat me effectively? Do I have to win EVERY battle with someone not yet comfortable with my lesbian-ness?

My final point of contention with this story is the continued reference in the mainstream media to same sex relationships as a ‘lifestyle’. I know, I know, this chestnut makes the rounds all day every day, but really, it’s so infuriating. As if being in a same sex relationship equates to spending six months of the year in Palm Springs golfing. I’m starting to REALLY hate that word, in any context. In the case of this story, it’s especially egregious, since it’s in a health care setting and has very real repercussions in a life and death sort of way. Like calling it a ‘lifestyle’ creates an environment where it’s okay to demur in providing treatment. In that way I totally get the anger of the couple who laid the complaint.

If it arises from the writer, it’s even worse. We need to change the language with which we refer to same sex issues, especially in the health arena. Using this sort of offhand reference to such a challenging issue relegates same sex couples in terms of issue importance to the fashion pullout of the newspaper. Just stop doing it.

~ by qreview on January 29, 2009.