My Doctor told me that men who get HPV complications "probably deserve it".

I am not making this up. We discussed Guardasil yesterday and this guy's smart, thorough, and takes his time with his patients, which is why I respect him.

At any rate, I asked why the State (TX) wouldn't also want to mandate males receiving the vaccine, since they can get complications--like penile cancer, for example.

That's when he said most men who get HPV complications "probably deserve it". I, taken aback, asked "How do they 'deserve it' "?!! he said they're probably engaged in very risky behaviors and often get it "in prison".

I interpreted this to mean they're having gay sex. I was so shocked I dropped the subject.

How can an otherwise intelligent, compassionate man think this way?

I'd file a complaint with your health insurance agency and the medical board.

The old "he's just a repressed, closet queen" when comments like this are made.

Chances are he's just a freaking asshole. Call it like it is, don't assume he must be a conflicted gay. Sheesh.

There are more facets in this issue than most people are going to want to accept.

Who cares if he's a closeted guy?
Who cares if he's not engaging in feelings, who gives a damn what the core reasons are (I can think of many)?
Who cares what his marital status is.

The core fact is, freely running around boinking everyone in sight is undoubtedly going to spread disease. If it can't be cured then it must be endured. Or at least contained so it's stopped spreading!

I've been upfront with people in the past. (I'm clean and I have eczema, so I make damn sure I have no outbreaks) Most people aren't and I'm smart enough to know how stupid others can be.

And of anything to suffer from, I'd rather it not be related to a taboo subject (sex in general, who gives a damn about any 'preferences'.)

I could just as easily make a number of glib throwaway comments as much as anyone else; Lord knows it'd be easy...

Also, I have to remember, that when I say stuff like that, it's not as if the person in question is actually hearing me say it.

It makes more sense to make that sort of accusation to someone's face, knowing it will likely piss them off, than to simply toss it around here and there and everywhere.

Chances are, the guy is simply an uncaring, self-righteous asshole.

But if I were his patient, I would quote my original response.

He isn't SPREADING and making those complications for others.

And if more people bothered to think about others in that regard we'd have far fewer cases of STDs.

There are some diseases that are inevitable.

But for those that can be avoided, surely it is better to try to avoid them?

And if not, maybe I can get somebody to give me what it takes so I can die because I'm tired of a shithole society that has people looking after #1 only and not giving a fuck about anyone else... which is ironic because when people fuck they seem to be giving out a hell of a lot more than they claim they don't realize...

You're damn right I'm angry.

they have their stupid opinions too. My suggestion: Find a new doctor, one that has it right in their head.

HIV is not just transmitted in prisons or via gay sex. HIV effects EVERYONE. Your doctor is not only stupid, he is a fool!

IMPEACH him now!

:kick:

about that.


Where is the compassion?

I'd dump the guy. I've done it before and would do it again too. Sad is right!

No compassion for those 'in prison?'

No compassion for those raped 'in prison?'

No compassion for for those who participate in male on male sex?

No compassion for 'risky behavior' however he defines that?

I guess your doc believes one must meet certain criteria to deserve compassion. I wish that was a rare belief.

There is something really wrong with anyone who has that mindset.

I don't know if it's higher than the general population or not, but I'm often surprised how many doctors and nurses I meet who are hardcore Bible beaters. I guess I still naively assume that people who enter science-laden occupations would tend to be rational thinkers. That's what that doctor who said that to you probably is.

I went to my mother's doctor, who told me to pray for my kidney infection. When I told her about that, she said that he often "prescribes" prayer for her as well. She did eventually stop going to him. (Maybe realizing she could get the same "medical advice" from her priest - and for less money!)

And I went to my mother-in-law's eye doctor who congratulated me on my (then) upcoming wedding, noting that I've "had my career" and "its time." I'm 30, btw. I didn't get to the part where he told me that I'd better have kids soon before my uterus dries up, but I thanked him for his time, told him I found his attitude insulting, and informed him that I would not be returning.

And don't even get me started on the questions I answer and looks I endure when I go to pick up my birth control at my local (very rural) pharmacy... they probably have to special order it just for me, the godless, heathen liberal who hates children... :)

Tell him what you told us. That you appreciate the kind of doctor he is. That he takes his time and treats his patients well. However, his idea that anyone would DESERVE to be sick upset you. No one DESERVES to be untreated for an illness regardless of their lifestyle.

If you hate confrontation like me then write him a letter if you must after you change doctors (if you must). Just remember, even good doctors are people too. They have their own goofy ideas just like the rest of us that can sometimes be shaped by someone willing to speak up.

that they can change pigheaded assholes by "having a talk with them" and "telling him how you feel"

what you need to do is get far, far away from him.
you won't change him by talking to him. he is mentally defective and will stay that way.

No, I'm not egotistical enough to think my voice alone will change someone's mind. But one voice at a time can make a difference. It doesn't always but it CAN. And IMHO a doctor who cares enough about his patients to refuse to be rushed by the demands of insurance companies has the potential of at least considering what someone has to say.

Human history is filled with examples of individuals who made a difference....gave the ball a small nudge and started a movement and changed history. Sometimes all it takes is one voice and I think we sell each other short when we are unwilling to find the courage to speak our mind or take the action we think is necessary. -- Whether it's the federal government or the neighbor, or the doctor........

If he's that ignorant about STDs, what else is he ignorant about when it comes to health issues? I'm sure you can find a doctor who actually formulates opinions based upon scientific facts.

That's sure a lot of "deserved" infections. I guess I'm one of them, judging from my visit to the doctor 25 years ago. :puke:

Strange. I've never been in prison and I've only ever inserted "Blue Tab P" in "Pink Slot V" and "Pink Slot M" in accordance with the instructions I got long, long ago.

Bizarre.

:)

:rofl:
all these years we have been making it up as we go along :)

Wanna see it? :evilgrin: :party:

off as a hazard of the trade. You would think that an educated person like a pilot would know better.

and even so, he may be so psychologically screwed up he'd prefer to get something and die from it.

Who knows?

It's tragic either way...

gonorrhea etc.

Sexual activity is a risk, protection or not.

that doctors who are sued for malpractice (universally) "deserve it?"

That ought to hit a nerve that even he can understand...:eyes:

logical to me.

Recommendations will likely be extended to include adolescent boys in the future (as well as older women>26 years). ACIP meets twice yearly to consider changes to current vaccine recommendations. It is not uncommon for them to be expand recommendations sequentially as more data becomes available.

Cute screen name, btw.

HPV: favorable data for male vaccination; VFC action; CDC shift in research focus

A paper published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics includes new data from Merck on some of their ongoing trials of Gardasil in different populations. It's a highly technical paper with an equally complex title: "Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of a Prophylactic Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Male and Female Adolescents and Young Adult Women." (free abstract; subscription required for full-text).
To summarize, the paper reports the results of trials examining whether the vaccine's response in 10-15 year olds mirrors what's been shown in older females (16-23 year-olds). The short answer is that it does generate a comparable ('noninferior,' in scientific jargon) immune response in younger populations. Good news. The most interesting finding from the perspective of potential ethical issues is the comparison of data between 10-15 year old boys versus girls. Boys had a nearly identical response to the vaccine as their female counterparts did as well as a virtually identical safety profile between genders. As the paper's authors (all of whom are employees or consultants of Merck, critics might note, despite that being an obvious result of a Merck trial) note:

"Our findings in boys lend support for implementation of gender-neutral immunization using this vaccine for the purpose of preventing the widespread morbidity and mortality from anogenital cancer, as well as dysplastic cervical and external genital lesions, in the general population."
Speaking of Gardasil, news earlier this week that the vaccine has officially been added to the federal government's Vaccines for Children program, ensuring its availability to uninsured children age 18 or under. Here's a brief story from UPI.
One final related item: a story from Wednesday's Washington Post, "CDC Shifts Vaccine-Data Focus," reports on the decision to refocus intensive data-collection activities on immunization in 22 major cities on teenagers rather than young children. The move is a result of multiple new vaccines recommended for adolescents, including vaccines against HPV, meningococcus, and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis (Tdap).

Labels: CDC, Gardasil, HPV, Pediatrics (journal)


http://www.vaccineethics.org/labels/Gardasil.html

legal profession?

If so, he should probably be reported. If not, why the hell not?

I really doubt he'd short the care of a man with such an affliction...

People get very comfy with me and sometimes say the STOOPIDEST THINGS imaginable.

... or perhaps some don't think there's a difference?

And if you'd like to point out where I said what you claim I assumed, I'd appreciate it.


EDIT: Made more sense with subject/body switched.

I'd ask him if, instead of circumcisions, males should just have it all lopped off and the whole problem would be averted, including his personal problem with normal sexuality. But then, I'm just a bee with an itch where ignorant, self righteous doctors are concerned. ;)

Had a GYN once tell me HE "didn't believe in PMS". Well, I don't believe kicking him in the balls would hurt, but then I could be wrong.

:puke: