Medical Advice With Mixed Messages: Part I
"The Health Risks of Gay Sex": Background and Basic Issues
 

February 14 2006
Counterbias.com
MEL SEESHOLTZ

That America has been theocratizing medicine is clear. Consider this January 30, 2005 report from The Washington Post –

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal [religious] beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients’ rights.

– in light of this case from Florida reported on February 2, 2005 by the Associated Press and other media outlets:

A 36-year-old lesbian has filed a state complaint against a doctor and physician’s assistant alleging she was given literature condemning homosexuality as “sinful and sexually impure” after a routine appointment. …

 

When she [Jamie Beiler] opened up an envelope Pope-Wright [Dr. John R. Hartman’s physician’s assistant] left at the checkout counter, she was shocked to find photocopied pages including Bible verses that denounced homosexuality and asserted God can help her change.

 

Also named in the complaint is Dr. John R. Hartman, who allegedly deflected Beiler’s concerns when she complained to the office.

The 365Gay.com report on the same incident indicated that “ex-gay” therapy materials were also in the packet Ms. Belier was given:

The complaints, filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of Beiler, allege that during the March 2005 visit, Dr. Hartman and his medical assistant Dawn Pope-Wright falsely presented their personal beliefs as medical information and provided her with unwanted treatment that has been rejected as ineffective by all major health and mental health organizations. [italics added; see Part II]

Executive Director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Joel Ginsberg, further commented on the danger of mixing medicine, religion and politics: “Ms. Beiler’s experience represents a violation of the doctor-patient relationship. Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons (LGBT) frequently find it difficult to be honest with their doctors because they fear discrimination, and they often receive substandard care as a result….”

Some gays and lesbians avoid seeking sex-related medical care at all, while others are denied health care coverage as a result of the conjoining of theology and medicine.

The February 4, 2006 Associated Press report told the story of “Dr. Alan J. Couture, 36, an emergency physician at St. Mary’s for eight years, [who] filed a complaint Thursday [February 2, 2006] with the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. He accused the hospital of discriminating against him on the basis of his sexual orientation and marital status.”

Same-sex “civil unions” became legal in Connecticut in October 2005. The enabling legislation also required health insurance plans regulated by the state to give civil partners the same benefits as spouses.

Dr. Couture and his partner, Robert McDonald, were joined in a legal civil union, but “Couture received only one insurance card, and McDonald learned he was not covered when he tried to schedule an appointment with the couple’s primary care physician.”

Although it operates independently, St. Mary’s Hospital does so in cooperation with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford. “Robert Ritz, the hospital’s president, said that as a Catholic institution, it abides by the ‘ethical and religious directives of the church’” which opposes the love represented by same-sex civil unions, despite the Pope’s recent encyclical “God is Love.”

But if Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions and mandated that health insurance plans regulated by the state give civil partners the same benefits as spouses, what happened to Dr. Couture and Mr. McDonald?

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, which provides health care coverage to St. Mary’s employees, extends benefits to civil partners. But the hospital’s insurance is self-funded, keeping it outside the jurisdiction of the state’s Insurance Department, state officials said. Self-funded insurance plans do not have the same type of state oversight or regulation as other plans, said Kevin Lembo, the state health care advocate.

 

Dawne Westbrook, a Waterbury lawyer who filed the complaint on behalf of Couture and McDonald, said St. Mary’s engaged in employment discrimination by not treating Couture the same as other employees. As recipients of state funding, Catholic hospitals are subject to state laws, she said.

I recently read “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. I found the article on the Catholic Educator’s Research Center’s website in late January 2006. The article’s 2002 copyright is held by the Corporate Resource Council whose goal, according to their website, is to provide analyses “of the value to corporations of family- and faith-friendly employee policies. The goal of all CRC resources and programs is to equip corporate executives to establish family- and faith-friendly employee policies based on sound legal, financial and other business principles.”

Dr. Diggs has been a member of the National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay political lobbying group that organized and sponsored the three “Justice Sunday” events (JS, JS II, JS III). Some of his beliefs have been posted on the FRC website. He has testified against Massachusetts’ H. 1643 and S. 1319, “An Act to Provide Timely Access to Emergency Contraception,” and has argued against “tolerance” education. He is a member of the Physician Resource Council of Massachusetts, “the medical advisory arm” of the Massachusetts Family Institute that is “dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.” Dr. Diggs is also listed with the Ambassador Speakers Bureau and Literacy Agency whose “about us” begins with “Ambassador is the oldest and most established Christian-based talent agency in the United States.”

Dr. Diggs’ basic argument in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was that “sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose” participants “to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.” [italics added].

“STDs” were the first risk in the list. Yes, homosexuals do suffer from STDs, just as do heterosexuals. Unprotected sex can be dangerous for everyone. No doubt about it. However, in the “Health Care” section of the article, several diseases “frequent among male homosexual practitioners” were listed: “anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.” [italics and links added]

There is no doubt these can be found in the gay community, but what bothered me was the statement “sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.” I am not a medical doctor, but after a few days researching on-line medical sources (hence the added links), speaking with health care providers (general practitioners and specialists) as well as “sex therapists,” it seems these diseases are not that “rare” or “virtually unknown” in “the exclusively heterosexual population.” Heterosexuals also practice oral and anal sex, as well as other more, shall we say “kinky” varieties that could also result in transmission of these diseases or precipitate the conditions that lead to them.

That Dr. Diggs chose to begin his non-alphabetical list not with the most common diseases but with rare “anal cancer” – strictly speaking not an “STD” – seemed suspicious, so I consulted medical, scientific and “general info” authorities: the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Information and Support International and Mamashealth, a nonpartisan, unaffiliated website “aimed at providing clear, simple, easy to understand information about health” which had this to say:

Anal cancer is more common in American women than men. It is often seen above age 60. In younger adults, it is more common in single homosexual men than in heterosexual men. … Anal cancer is very uncommon. [italics added]

The other two sources agreed. “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was copyrighted in 2002, but according to the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 estimates, new cases of anal, anal canal and anorectum cancers nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 4,000; Male: 1,700; Female: 2,300.” Estimated deaths nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 500; Male: 200; Female: 300.” 

==

To Be Continued: Part II and III coming soon...

---