The Student Room Group

Don't call pregnant patients 'mothers': Doctors are banned from using the word.

Scroll to see replies

wtf?lol
what else are you meant to call them?
Reply 61
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Wōden
Let's not forget also that somebody, and most likely a whole commitee of somebodies, was paid taxpayer's money to come up with with this drivel.


I'm pretty sure the BMA is funded by its members, not the government. Even if it was, the committee have written a recommendation to its staff within a greater document about inclusivity, so I doubt this will have taken up too much of their time.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Yep

I really don't understand why the it's just guidance! crowd thinks that stops it from being aggravatingly stupid. It doesn't and it is.


Lets see:

- It makes the title of this thread completely wrong.
- It makes most of the DM and SUN articles' content completely wrong.
- It makes many comments on here completely wrong.
- It means the statement has many orders of magnitude less impact than 'doctors told to...' would imply. The BMA has probably only made a handful of statements that refer to pregnant patients ever...
- It means that rather than talking to individual women, this guidance would only ever be applicable to statements aimed at addressing/referring to every single person in the country. Which makes the content of the statement far, far more understandable, even if you don't personally agree with it.
- Because i highly doubt that if they actually did just make a statement including the term 'pregnant patients' instead that anyone would have even noticed.
- And oh yes: you can just ignore it if you want to. No small difference...

What can i say: I prefer the truth.
Original post by Wōden
Let's not forget also that somebody, and most likely a whole commitee of somebodies, was paid taxpayer's money to come up with with this drivel.


The BMA is not funded by the taxpayer.
I wonder when a government body will issue a guidance document that guides guidance document writers into writing guidance that is useful and relevant, and that is not easily mistaken for instruction.

If guidance is of so little significance that is can be dismissed as being of no importance when people get angry about it, why did it get written in the first place?

In any case, when did gender affect one's ability to give birth? Surely, one's sex is of more importance and relevance.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 65
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Good bloke
I wonder when a government body will issue a guidance document that guides guidance document writers into writing guidance that is useful and relevant, and that is not easily mistaken for instruction.

If guidance is of so little significance that is can be dismissed as being of no importance when people get angry about it, why did it get written in the first place?

In any case, when did gender affect one's ability to give birth? Surely, one's sex is of more importance and relevance.


The problem with this thread is not that the guidance cannot be dismissed, it is that the title and majority of the article are completely false. The BMA is a doctor's union, funded by its members. It is not part of the government. They have issued this guidance to their staff, to use when talking generally about those who are pregnant, not to doctors and not for discussing individuals, when you would use their gender.
Original post by Good bloke
I wonder when a government body will issue a guidance document that guides guidance document writers into writing guidance that is useful and relevant, and that is not easily mistaken for instruction.


I wonder whether someone will then write guidance to guide whether such guidance has any relevance to a completely private institution like the BMA.

If guidance is of so little significance that is can be dismissed as being of no importance when people get angry about it, why did it get written in the first place?


It is important to the like 10 people this guide refers to. They want to be more inclusive - that's their prerogative.

It is categorically not important for the DM readership and everyone else getting outraged over 'leftist loons' or whatever insult is now fashionable.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ax12
They have issued this guidance to their staff, to use when talking generally about those who are pregnant, not to doctors and not for discussing individuals, when you would use their gender.


You present that statement as if it forms a perfect and reasonable explanation of what has been written. You ignore the fact that all pregnant people are mothers-to-be, all women, all female, both in fact and in normal parlance, and that this seeks to make an unusual situation out of what has been normal since time immemorial, in all cultures. You also fail to explain how gender is relevant to childbirth and pregnancy.
Reply 68
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Good bloke
You present that statement as if it forms a perfect and reasonable explanation of what has been written. You ignore the fact that all pregnant people are mothers-to-be, all women, all female, both in fact and in normal parlance, and that this seeks to make an unusual situation out of what has been normal since time immemorial, in all cultures. You also fail to explain how gender is relevant to childbirth and pregnancy.


All pregnant people are biologically female. Gender is based on societal roles, so there are some people who are biologically male who, for whatever reason, wish to be seen as a woman, and vice versa. When referring to someone as a 'mother', you are assuming that they are a woman. In the case mentioned in the article, the person does not wish to be referred to as that. The BMA is issuing guidance on inclusivity to its staff members, not to doctors or the general public. I understand that being transgender is complicated and not well-understood, so there will be people who don't get why someone would want to become pregnant because they are biologically female, yet also wish to be referred to as 'he', and not a mother.

In short, it doesn't impact doctors or the general public. This article is incredibly misleading, and written to cause outrage when there really isn't a huge problem. If you disagree with the sentiments of their recommendation, you really don't need to follow it.
Reply 69
Avatar for Wōden
Wōden
15
Original post by nexttime
The BMA is not funded by the taxpayer.


Good.
Original post by ax12
When referring to someone as a 'mother', you are assuming that they are a woman.


Why assume they wish to be seen as a person then? It is a fact that are a mother (or will be) and it is a fact that they are human. But the guidance writer is not concerned with facts, he/she/it is concerned only with desires. What if they want to be an ant? If I wanted to be seen as an ant I'd be a damn sight more cheesed off for being called a person than if I were called a mother, as at least the latter is definitely true, whether I am ant or human.


Original post by ax12

In short, it doesn't impact doctors or the general public.


It is guidance for doctors. How does it not affect them? How can it not affect the public, if it guides doctors to call pregnant women "people" or, worse, "persons"?
When I read the title I thought it would be to try and reduce feelings of guilt surrounding abortion, nothing to do with transgender issues.
Reply 72
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Good bloke
Why assume they wish to be seen as a person then? It is a fact that are a mother (or will be) and it is a fact that they are human. But the guidance writer is not concerned with facts, he/she/it is concerned only with desires. What if they want to be an ant? If I wanted to be seen as an ant I'd be a damn sight more cheesed off for being called a person than if I were called a mother, as at least the latter is definitely true, whether I am ant or human.




It is guidance for doctors. How does it not affect them? How can it not affect the public, if it guides doctors to call pregnant women "people" or, worse, "persons"?


Lets not be silly about it, wanting to be viewed as being a woman by society rather than a man or vice versa, is not the same as wanting to be a totally different species.

No, it's guidance for BMA staff on referring to all people who are pregnant. Not for doctors referring to their patients.
it;s the Heily Fail it;s goin g to be a crap misreading of a policy ...
Original post by Good bloke
It is guidance for doctors. How does it not affect them? How can it not affect the public, if it guides doctors to call pregnant women "people" or, worse, "persons"?


No, its not. Thanks for the ignore above where i point out that it only relates to about 10 people.

Its an internal guide for BMA employees, with that section relating to public statements and reports made by the organisation.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ax12
Lets not be silly about it, wanting to be viewed as being a woman by society rather than a man or vice versa, is not the same as wanting to be a totally different species.

No, it's guidance for BMA staff on referring to all people who are pregnant. Not for doctors referring to their patients.


They are both cases of wanting to be something you are not.

Original post by nexttime

Its an internal guide for BMA employees, with that section relating to public statements and reports made by the organisation.


If the guidance relates to documents to be written by the BMA non-medical staff talking about pregnant women in general and not to an individual women then it makes even less sense. Again, all pregnant people are women and mothers-to-be - that is a fact - even if they like to live as men. Their sexual proclivities and psychological needs are generally pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the state of their placenta and foetus.

By this logic, BMA guidance on people with testicular cancer must never mention their possession of a testicle, lest it trigger any man-to-woman trans by referring to their inate maleness.

The BMA has given up all pretence to having scientific credibility.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Their sexual proclivities and psychological needs are generally pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the state of their placenta and foetus.


How do you know that's the context? Maybe we are talking about the psychological welbeing of postpartum patients, a pretty important and common medical issue?

By this logic, BMA guidance on people with testicular cancer must never mention their possession of a testicle, lest it trigger any man-to-woman trans by referring to their inate maleness.


Yes, they probably would.

You've picked an example where its actually way less clearcut, as there are people out there who don't even know they are male with undescended residual testes. Which are more likely to get cancer than normal testes. Remember Caster Semenya?

The BMA has given up all pretence to having scientific credibility.


I'm gonna go ahead and say it. If your standard of 'scientific credibility' is 'can identify there are two biological sexes', then they probably aren't going to care what you think. This has nothing to do with science and you know it.

You're welcome to your opinion. The BMA has decided it wants to be sensitive to people with gender issues. That is their decision and I don't see why it has anything to do with you or anyone else, really.
What complete nonsense.
"Ermergerd you guys it's not a ban; it's a guideline! Stop overreacting!"

Yeah, as though that makes it any less stupid. They're still saying doctors shouldn't call mothers exactly what they are, just to avoid potentially offending a very, very tiny minority of individuals.

But with the way things are going these days, how long before this 'guideline' becomes a rule?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 79
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Dandaman1
"Ermergerd you guys it's not a ban; it's a guideline! Stop overreacting!"

Yeah, as though that makes it any less stupid. They're still saying doctors shouldn't call mothers exactly what they are, just to avoid potentially offending a very, very tiny minority of individuals.

But with the way things are going these days, how long before this 'guideline' becomes a rule?


Please read the whole thread and article. It is not for doctors.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you