I can think of a handful of ways of confirming someone’s biology without checking official documentation. After all, hospitals still check blood types and tissue types
That takes time. You don’t want to get the wrong dose of fentanyl, but you’ll definitely want fentanyl if you’ve been hit by a car and broke some ribs.
Okay but that argument kind of falls apart when you know that emergency medicine won’t, for example, give a patient a dose of fentanyl without having naloxone immediately on hand. I am not a paramedic but I have known a few and a few ER nurses and they are almost always working with more unknowns than knowns.
I mean it’s not, what I’m saying is that the only time a patient’s gender being unknown is a risk is in emergency situations. Otherwise the doctor and the patient are going to have a conversation before the doctor does anything and it should come up then. Although I should hope that it’s not a doorknob comment.
With the only situation when a person’s gender is undermined is when the doctor and/nurses are already working with less than ideal information. Having a person’s sex/gender on their identification isn’t really answering the questions that need answering then. The only reason it’s so important is because the protocols are built with the assumption that the person is one of two genders. Which lets not even begin to get into the atypical sex’s (XXX, XXy, Xyy, ect). It’s an outdated standard but it’s so engrained into everything.
I can think of a handful of ways of confirming someone’s biology without checking official documentation. After all, hospitals still check blood types and tissue types
That takes time. You don’t want to get the wrong dose of fentanyl, but you’ll definitely want fentanyl if you’ve been hit by a car and broke some ribs.
Okay but that argument kind of falls apart when you know that emergency medicine won’t, for example, give a patient a dose of fentanyl without having naloxone immediately on hand. I am not a paramedic but I have known a few and a few ER nurses and they are almost always working with more unknowns than knowns.
And why would you want to add an additional unknown factor again? Because that’s what you’d be doing by removing sex from the basic information card.
Don’t see how increasing the amount of times naloxone is given is beneficial here.
I mean it’s not, what I’m saying is that the only time a patient’s gender being unknown is a risk is in emergency situations. Otherwise the doctor and the patient are going to have a conversation before the doctor does anything and it should come up then. Although I should hope that it’s not a doorknob comment.
With the only situation when a person’s gender is undermined is when the doctor and/nurses are already working with less than ideal information. Having a person’s sex/gender on their identification isn’t really answering the questions that need answering then. The only reason it’s so important is because the protocols are built with the assumption that the person is one of two genders. Which lets not even begin to get into the atypical sex’s (XXX, XXy, Xyy, ect). It’s an outdated standard but it’s so engrained into everything.
need to know weight for dosing, not genitals
I can count your ribs faster than I can look up government documentation, and even that’s assuming you’ve already been identified.
My apologies, I didn’t know you were such a slow reader.
I think the same for the donor marker in general. Can’t the hospital system keep that info? Why does it need to be on my ID?
Yup, that’s my point. I don’t think a government (should) need this.
On that note, I learned from another commenter that in Germany you can have your gender deleted from their database.