I saw this discussion going on yesterday
Wasn't able to comment for various reasons
There is a lot to unpack here so let's take a step back & look at this objectively & subjectively.

Objectively - the original person is upset because of the way her doctor treated her. She is well within her right to complain & seek alternative options. The person QTing her commented with some friend's comment (hearsay) there by steering the narrative to where she wanted it
Everything else and I mean EVERYTHING else is subjective. If you agree with me till this point then we can carry on. Else I'm afraid you are wasting your time reading on

So let's look at this subjectively. This is where I feel the core of most of the disagreements yesterday were
This is my subjective view

Should the doctor in question have used more appropriate language in her history taking (questioning)?

Yes I feel so. It could have been worded better definitely. We can always improve we can always learn
Sex & marriage are not mutually dependent
However
This is where things get dicey
I know nothing of the people involved
I don't know the background of the people involved
Could both the doctor & the patient be a victim of their upbringing/cultural differences?
We don't know this. Easy to judge both from our own bias.
What if the doctor is from a conservative background culturally? We know that education is not at all connected to liberal or conservative views.
Can we hold it against the doctor for being like that? Depends on our own bias & where we stand in the cultural spectrum.
Let's go back to the questioning itself.

Since I've worked abroad my approach
would have been different. Just after coming back to India had a patient who I asked "are you sexually active"

The immediate reply with righteous indignation was "how dare you I'm not married!"
🤷‍♂️
Now that patient is obviously upset with me. Who knows if she posted the incident on social media. What might have been the response?

This is a delicate issue. And it definitely could have been handled better by a person who claims to be a journalist QTing the original post.
"History taking" is very important in medicine. I can only speculate what the doctor had in mind when asking "are you married"

Off the top of my head the choice of contraception suggested might be different if it was a fixed partner vs multiple partners.
Maybe asking "are you married" seemed more polite than asking "will you be having 1 partner or multiple partners"?
Contraception is not only for preventing pregnancy but also to prevent STDs
So if the doctor was thinking like that then what is wrong with that line of questioning?
Again this is how I might have approached it. But like I said all of this is subjective and speculation. We aren't hearing from the doctor in question. So ... 🤷‍♂️
At the end of the day it is far easier for us to imagine the worst in someone than to consider the good in someone.

I'm not saying all doctors are completely innocent. There are bad apples in every field. But I want to believe the good outnumber the bad by a massive margin 🙏

You May Also Like

THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE


2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less.
https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n


3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)

(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)


4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.

For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3


5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.