visagrunt wrote:
I'm gonna put my doctor hat on for this.
There is no question in my mind that dedicated facilities for women's health are amply justified on medical grounds. Ovulation and menstruation can, in abnormal presentations, create clinically significant, ongoing challenges to daily living. The use of oral contraceptives can require careful medical oversight. Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care are a medical specialty all on their own.
Women face unique cancer risks arising in the cervix, the uterus, the ovaries and the breast. While there are certainly analogs for men (prostate, penile, testicular and breast cancers), their detection is generally easier--and even when it is invasive (such as a DRE) it is far less invasive than corresponding examinations for women.
That is not to say that men don't face unique medical issues--of course we do. But, by and large, the medical system is better equipped to cope with men's health issues.
*get ready for some incredible medical terms *
I think the question lies not with whether to build dedicated women's hospitals but with what to call them. Specialised units that deal with in depth women's stuff and nothing else and happen to have no men is a good idea. Calling them women's hospitals is not
[edit]
even then, men can't be excluded completely. If one of my family members (god forbid) was admitted there I wouldn't want to be denied a visit (or a reception job) based on gender
_________________
"grrrrr"
12 Mar 2012, 4:06 pm
