To which, I've heard the argument (and read online) that if you want to use the argument that you want a doctor that has been through what you have, then be sure to get the orthopedic surgeon with a broken hip, the neurologist with a stroke, and the cardiologist with a heart attack.
Is that a fair argument/assessment?
In most cases, I would say, that I don't care what gender the doctor is... I just want the one that's most qualified! But of course, there are instances that you would rather just have the doctor be the same gender as you (especially for females) for your own comfort level in certain situations.
Others, however, argue that that is reverse sexism. I've read so many articles lately about how male resident doctors have had such a hard time because they have a double negative against them. A) They are resident doctors and some people don't want 'students' treating them (even though they must run all cases by whoever they are working under) and B) a lot of females want to be treated by females for certain things. I don't know if that is a fair assessment though and wonder if males prefer male doctors for certain things.
On the other hand, I see (and have heard/read) the other side of the argument -- that a doctor is a doctor, so their gender shouldn't matter and should be taken out of the element... and that doctors of both genders have gone through extensive education and whatnot. I don't think it's that simple though -- of course there is a human element to it that can't be taken out the equation so easily.
I certainly don't think all doctors are equal -- but I also don't think a doctor of a certain gender is better than another.
After reading such articles, I'm so torn! I see the argument from both sides of the argument so well. I guess it's one of those things that is 'to each, his own'. What do you think?
P.S. Don't forget to leave me a comment below on your thoughts! As always, I'd love to hear from you.