Opinions from Gps please

The_Minister

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/feminism-in-medical-world-a-prescription-for-disaster-1429866.html

'In 1975, one in every 20 doctors who graduated from GP training schemes in the Republic was a woman. By 2003, according to a Trinity College training survey, 70pc of GP graduates were female. An old problem, gender imbalance in the medical profession, may have been rectified."

Thus runs an editorial in yesterday's 'Irish Times'; and no doubt to the liberal mind, a 70:30 ratio in favour of female graduates is actually gender balance. To be sure, the editorial admits, several paragraphs later, that the ratio between women and men was tilted -- a nice word to describe the above ratio, but the overall impression was nonetheless created that a historic injustice has been, well, 'rectified'.

Now, are you looking for an example of how the feminist agenda is wrecking Irish institutions? Take one step forward, the Irish medical profession! For years -- and long before the recent TCD survey by Professor Fergus O'Kelly -- we have known that the feminisation of the medical profession was creating a long-term disaster.

But no one dared deal with the issue in public, least of all journalists, the most ideologically 'liberal' of all professional groups, for whom, apparently, 2.3/1 = 1. Because interviews are seen as 'sexist', medical schools are obliged to demand the highest number of points in the Leaving Cert, which is taken at an age when girls are overwhelmingly superior to boys.

For the boy is not out of his intellectual chrysalis when he sits his Leaving Cert; the girl is flapping her lovely butterfly wings in the sunlight. We know this is a temporary phenomenon, related to the difference in the processes of maturation.

Other differences will unfold over the next 10 years which are overwhelmingly to the advantage of men. But any assessment of future medical students on their long-term potential or professional intent, would be vigorously opposed by those ridiculous, yet deeply sinister feminist-agenda quangos which are subsidised by the Department of Justice.

Moreover, overall, boys and girls do not belong to the same species of medical Lepidoptera; he-doctors are usually doctors for life, she-doctors are not, as a survey four years ago by two women doctors, Davida La Harpe and Fiona Graham, first revealed.

Their investigations of women GP graduates from between 1995 and 2001 showed that only 10pc intended to remain on as full time GPs. Yes, just one in 10. Which is bad -- and it could actually be far worse.

Because only two thirds of women graduates invited to participate in the survey actually did so: the other one third did not reply.

Had they already left the profession? The worst-case scenario is therefore as follows: only 6pc of GP she-graduates will be practising as full-time GPs in the long-term.

The La Harpe/Graham survey then showed that of the she-graduates who filled in the questionnaire, 13pc had already left the profession -- essentially, while in their 20s. Another one -third had ceased full-time time work. Some 40pc were already intending to abandon out-office hours, and 80pc said they would never work as a single GP in rural areas.

This is not a health system; it is a first day on the Somme. A large part of our medical schools output are casualties to retirement or part-time work within 10 years of their becoming doctors. But there is no native spare capacity to make good this shortfall: We only have enough medical places to supply our needs. But too many of these places are not being taken by serious would-be doctors, but by frivolous show-offs, who, having grabbed so many vital places in medical school, thereby revealing to the world how very clever they are, then abandon the profession totally, or in part.

The Harpe-Graham response to the crisis was itself utterly girlish: It was that the entire medical profession (and presumably the sick) must re-arrange itself around the requirements of the rising army of part-time she-doctors.

Which is rather like saying the moon should rearrange itself around the requirements of Cape Canaveral.

Well, if things continue as they are, when one of you former she-doctors falls into labour at 5 am, you'll find the midwives and obstetricians are all girls too, so the hospitals are empty.

Or maybe, you hope you can depend on the tiny handful of male doctors which our educational system, no doubt by some regrettable oversight, still produces. But those fine fellows cannot plug the huge gaps left by the mass exodus of women from a profession which they had prevented so many lads from entering in the first place.

So how are the holes in our medical system to be filled? By immigrants from 'developing' countries, of course.

No doubt their native lands consider the loss of those graduates, educated at colossal expense by impoverished socities which are crying our for more doctors, a price well worth paying, merely so that Emma and Naomi and Jessica could prove that, aged 18, they were so much smarter than their male-contemporaries.

And with this triumph achieved, they then abandon the surgery, and high-tail it for Brown Thomas -- another victory for the feminist agenda!

Leaving aside who he says it, what are your opinions on what he says?
Do you think that there is any truth to this?

tallaght01

Most of my colleagueas are female. Most of them will take maternity leave at some point. Most of them are then in no hurry to come back to the madness of medicine. Why would you, when you have a new baby?

There's way more to life than working 72 hour shifts and being exhausted all the time in order to progress your career. Stacks of female docs come back and work a day or 2 a week. Fair play to them, I reckon.

When we treat doctors with some kind of respect, then we'll hold onto them. As long as we make them work crappy hours under crappy conditions, then they'll eventually get to the stage where they'll reciprocate.

I certainly feel no loyalty to most of the hospitals that I've worked in, because of how they treat us. A lot of docs feel the same.

AmcD

It is surprising that there wasn't more of a reaction to this article in the media, but then again it is probably better to ignore the misogynist rantings of Kevin Myers.
He is a typical male middle-class professional who obviously has very little experience of the Irish healthcare system. GPs look after 90% of the population's daily healthcare. Hospitals look after the other 10%, but get a lot more attention due to problems in A+E and a seemingly endless list of "scandals". Women and children make up the majority of patients attending GPs. Mothers do not generally mind who sees their children, as long as the doctor is competent. From my experience with female patients and reports from female friends and relatives, most women would prefer to see a female GP. Often this is because they are presenting with a gynae problem. But even more frequently it is because they have an emotional or psychological problem. It may be a sweeping generalisation, but I think female GPs are better suited to dealing with these type of consults. This is not to say of course that there aren't many excellent male GPs who are willing to listen to patients' problems in vivid detail.
I think it is unfair of Kevin Myers to expect female doctors to forfeit their rights to have a family. He doesn't mention any other members of society who should also forfeit this choice. He needn't worry if any of us ladies go into labour at 5am. The midwives have had the whole shiftwork system sorted out for a few centuries now. If there was an urgent need to see an obstetrician, the chances are that he would be male. The whole child-bearing thing is still a significant disadvantage to having a medical career in hospitals.
I chose general practice for a variety of reasons, including the option of potentially having a family. Kevin Myers seems to think this is a morally reprehensible decision, right up there with my decision to do medicine as a chance to "show off". He obviously is not familiar with the structure of general practice in Ireland. GP surgeries are a series of private businesses with contracts to look after patients with medical cards. (This is what makes them so efficient and free of bureaucracy- unlike the HSE, but that is a whole different argument). If a GP decides to have a family and elects to work part-time, then he or she makes sure there are enough GPs in the surgery to cover the hours. The patients do not suffer just because a GP is selfish enough to get pregnant.

Pete4779

Would it be crazy to link the increased number of female doctors relative to male over the past two decades and the steady decline of public health service efficiency and massive increase in waiting times for routine assessments?

AmcD: it is not about the quality or experience of the GP, etc., that Myers is making. It is that most of the wome who do go into medicine, do not continue in it after 10 years, and the vast vast majority do not become full time practicing doctors. This means that considerable resources are spent training people for a few short years of work, and more so, that there will be a clear absence of very highly experience experts with 20-30 years experience.

In essence, it will mean less access to experienced doctors. I would like to see the graduate medicine entry gender numbers to see if there is more balance. I would rather see a GP with 30 years experience who works full time than a part time 2-day a weeker who will quit in 3 years, like most female GPs.

To suggest that female GPs are better for some consults? Show the evidence, and not qualitative or subjective reports. The numbers are plain for anyone to see: as there are more females in medicine, it will become harder and harder for people to access the public heatlh service. This is already pretty obvious for the past 10 years, and the increase in immigrant doctors is also pretty obvious. It is already happening.

Chunky Monkey

Being an equalist I'd like to see the gender ratio at 50:50. For this reason, among others, I would advocate graduate entry only too if it weren't for the cost.

Pete4779 wrote: »

I would rather see a GP with 30 years experience who works full time than a part time 2-day a weeker who will quit in 3 years, like most female GPs.

I'm not arguing with you as I don't know either way but, to quote yourself, show the evidence please.

hunnymonster

Personally I don't care if I see a male or female GP but a lot of my female friends prefer to visit a female GP.
I don't know the figures but I would imagine (with the amount of routine GP visits women need - pill scripts, smears, pregnancy related stuff) that most of the GP visits are by women so if women are more comfortable with women and more women use GP services then more women should be GPs.

anotherlostie

hunnymonster wrote: »

Personally I don't care if I see a male or female GP but a lot of my female friends prefer to visit a female GP.
I don't know the figures but I would imagine (with the amount of routine GP visits women need - pill scripts, smears, pregnancy related stuff) that most of the GP visits are by women so if women are more comfortable with women and more women use GP services then more women should be GPs.

And what about men being more comfortable visiting a male GP? A commodity that is growing scarcer with every passing year in many Irish towns (and a lot of the reason is that female doctors choose the GP option as it provides an easier life work balance for rearing their families).

I would guess too that bringing medical qualification back to post science degree will result in more men becoming doctors, for the reason Myers outlines. Whether this results in more male GP's, or these guys become the surgeons and consultants of the future remains to be seen.