This wouldn’t’ be the first time medical misogyny was fatal.
When professional medicine was new, a doctor (male) was about three or four times more likely to kill a pregnant person or their infant than the midwife (female), who knew about washing her hands. The AMA was a pioneer in early American anti-abortion activism. Not for moral objection, just to discredit midwives and clever-women who dominated reproductive care at that time.
I agree with the medical misogyny part but the hand washing nurses part is incorrect AFAIK. They weren’t washing their hands either but the doctors were working on cadavers and so more riddled with nasty bacteria.
Women giving birth in the street had higher survival rates than either of the two hospitals in question which is fucking wild.
Half arsed history does a really great episode on it. Episode 91. Highly recommended.
Even after Semmelweis forced everyone to wash their hands and proved how life saving it was, he got enormous pushback for the notion that doctors could be killing their patients. Arrogance costing lives.
The article does not mention sex or medical actions based on the sex of the doctors and the patients.
This seems like something a sexist would just conclude to. You want it to be something bad for the sex you hate, but realistically, there is nothing at all weighing behind where your mind went.
No. I saw someone being inventive with a new narrative that contradicts the actual narrative. I don’t care if the social agenda is gender-based, raising classes of ethnicity, or if they just started being all pro-MAGA; the behaviour is still the same, regardless of the diversity of values in their agenda. It is intentionaly deceitful and the plague that has killed the Information Age.
So, I think it’s insane to call out my behaviour like that. Not even a male but got “triggered” by a single word reserved for males that lean extreme on a spectrum for males. Gaslight all you want, I’m simply incompatible with what your convenience wishes of me.
That said, your links are excellent. I encourage you to post them as actual posts where discussion and awareness can be spread proactively, avoiding any disservice toward such important things. Let’s keep our information clean and honest, knowing many people rely on comments over actually reading the content of posts.
The article does not mention sex or medical actions based on the sex of the doctors and the patients.
Fucking really?
Literally the first line of article:
A French woman who tested positive for hantavirus after she was evacuated from a cruise ship reported symptoms to doctors onboard but was told it was probably just anxiety, the Spanish health minister has said.
the woman…had been suffering flu-like symptoms but they appeared to be getting better and she did not have a fever.
“They were not thinking that these symptoms were compatible with hantavirus. Why? Because what she was telling [them] was [that she had] an episode of coughing some days ago that had disappeared, and what she was having at that moment was kind of like stress or anxiety or nervousness. So it was not catalogued [as hantavirus],” Padilla said.
“It is not that the patient was feeling bad and she was saying: ‘OK, I’m not going to say anything because I want to be on the plane.’ It was like: ‘OK, we have measured your temperature, it was not fever, afterwards you have been on the plane, it has taken off, you have started feeling bad, we have measured your temperature and it was fever.’”
Padilla said passengers could not have been tested onboard the vessel because there were no rapid PCR tests for hantavirus available. Any testing would have involved flying samples to Madrid to a specialist lab
She had no fever, she mentioned a brief cough that was gone, and then described feelings of anxiety. There were no tests that could be done there that would be definitive, so they cleared based on other factors. She didnt present any significant symptoms until she was on the flight.
What were the specific symptoms she reported to the doctors?
If I go to the doctor and I report “I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, I would expect the doctor to respond “That sounds like anxiety”.
If I report “I’m having a worsening cough, and body aches”, I’d expect “That sounds like a viral infection”.
If I were to report “I had a cough several days ago, but it has disappeared. I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, should the doctor listen to what I am saying and conclude “anxiety”? Or should they focus solely on the symptom I reported in decline and conclude “virus”?
That’s a very, very good point, but not the one you think it is.
Of the ~240 people aboard the vessel, 100% are experiencing symptoms of “anxiety”, while about 5% have been identified as also experiencing “Hantavirus”.
Everyone aboard is quarantined, and regularly being interviewed by medical personnel to determine if they are symptomatic. Did she initially report virus symptoms along with the anxiety affecting everyone? Or did the virus symptoms appear later?
“Ma’am, even though you have reported no symptoms indicating you have contracted the virus, we’re going to go ahead and say you have it.”
Asymptomatic. Correct. You just agreed with the doctor that she was not displaying symptoms of Hantavirus.
Like the other 95% of asymptomatic people on board, she was already under quarantine. Like all of them, she was already being treated as an asymptomatic carrier.
This wouldn’t’ be the first time medical misogyny was fatal.
When professional medicine was new, a doctor (male) was about three or four times more likely to kill a pregnant person or their infant than the midwife (female), who knew about washing her hands. The AMA was a pioneer in early American anti-abortion activism. Not for moral objection, just to discredit midwives and clever-women who dominated reproductive care at that time.
I agree with the medical misogyny part but the hand washing nurses part is incorrect AFAIK. They weren’t washing their hands either but the doctors were working on cadavers and so more riddled with nasty bacteria.
Women giving birth in the street had higher survival rates than either of the two hospitals in question which is fucking wild.
Half arsed history does a really great episode on it. Episode 91. Highly recommended.
Even after Semmelweis forced everyone to wash their hands and proved how life saving it was, he got enormous pushback for the notion that doctors could be killing their patients. Arrogance costing lives.
Source?
The article does not mention sex or medical actions based on the sex of the doctors and the patients.
This seems like something a sexist would just conclude to. You want it to be something bad for the sex you hate, but realistically, there is nothing at all weighing behind where your mind went.
education was highly gendered back then dude. it wasn’t explicit because it was implied that you would just know it.
Oh god shut the fuck up. Did you see the word ‘misogyny’ and got triggered?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23v42jdle7o
https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/how-gender-bias-medicine-has-shaped-womens-health
https://jaapl.org/content/52/4/398
No. I saw someone being inventive with a new narrative that contradicts the actual narrative. I don’t care if the social agenda is gender-based, raising classes of ethnicity, or if they just started being all pro-MAGA; the behaviour is still the same, regardless of the diversity of values in their agenda. It is intentionaly deceitful and the plague that has killed the Information Age.
So, I think it’s insane to call out my behaviour like that. Not even a male but got “triggered” by a single word reserved for males that lean extreme on a spectrum for males. Gaslight all you want, I’m simply incompatible with what your convenience wishes of me.
That said, your links are excellent. I encourage you to post them as actual posts where discussion and awareness can be spread proactively, avoiding any disservice toward such important things. Let’s keep our information clean and honest, knowing many people rely on comments over actually reading the content of posts.
Fucking really?
Literally the first line of article:
She had no fever, she mentioned a brief cough that was gone, and then described feelings of anxiety. There were no tests that could be done there that would be definitive, so they cleared based on other factors. She didnt present any significant symptoms until she was on the flight.
What were the specific symptoms she reported to the doctors?
If I go to the doctor and I report “I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, I would expect the doctor to respond “That sounds like anxiety”.
If I report “I’m having a worsening cough, and body aches”, I’d expect “That sounds like a viral infection”.
If I were to report “I had a cough several days ago, but it has disappeared. I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, should the doctor listen to what I am saying and conclude “anxiety”? Or should they focus solely on the symptom I reported in decline and conclude “virus”?
Were you on a ship which had a disease outbreak and 11 cases?
That’s a very, very good point, but not the one you think it is.
Of the ~240 people aboard the vessel, 100% are experiencing symptoms of “anxiety”, while about 5% have been identified as also experiencing “Hantavirus”.
Everyone aboard is quarantined, and regularly being interviewed by medical personnel to determine if they are symptomatic. Did she initially report virus symptoms along with the anxiety affecting everyone? Or did the virus symptoms appear later?
“Ma’am, even though you have reported no symptoms indicating you have contracted the virus, we’re going to go ahead and say you have it.”
^ much more problematic diagnosis.
What even are asymptomatic carriers smh my head
Asymptomatic. Correct. You just agreed with the doctor that she was not displaying symptoms of Hantavirus.
Like the other 95% of asymptomatic people on board, she was already under quarantine. Like all of them, she was already being treated as an asymptomatic carrier.
Well she literally reported anxiety, and a cough a few days prior that went away, according to the article…