tip off

Doctor divides uni: gay student told to seek hormone testing

Students and staff at the University of Canberra are divided over the actions of a Catholic doctor at the university medical centre who refuses to prescribe contraception and suggested a gay student have a hormone test.

A doctor at the University of Canberra medical centre told a gay student he could seek hormone treatment to cure his same-sex attraction.

The incident has divided university students and staff, with the student involved to launch an appeal against the university for its support of the doctor’s actions. The doctor is also well known in the university community for refusing to prescribe contraception due to her Catholic beliefs.

Just last month a NSW doctor from the Exclusive Bretheren church was banned from practising after he prescribed a testosterone-lowering drug to a young gay man in order to “cure” his homosexuality. In early October the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy deemed it ”unethical” to try and convert patients to heterosexuality.

I’m trying to do something now, because I really don’t think we should be waiting until a student kills themselves or something else,” politics student James Kent told Crikey.

In August 2011 Kent visited Dr Rehana Dutton at the university’s Health and Counselling Centre, after hearing from other students that Dutton refused to prescribe contraception. ”I went in primarily just to find out what the Billings and rhythm methods were,” Kent, the former general secretary of the University of Canberra students association, told Crikey. “And then I thought, if she cares this much about contraception, there’s a chance she might also be homophobic as well. I brought up I was same-sex attracted to see what would happen and that’s when things got weird.”

Kent tells Crikey that when he told the doctor that he’d been experiencing “thoughts about men” and asked whether these thoughts were natural, Dutton queried whether Kent had been feeling depressed. After Kent pressed further on whether his same-sex attraction was normal, Kent says that Dutton told him the evidence was inconclusive and she suggested a hormone imbalance may be to blame.

According to Kent, she then wrote a referral for a hormone test, and suggested a hormone treatment such as implanon — a female contraceptive inserted under the skin — may be effective. Dutton also suggested he speak with a priest and gave Kent the number for CatholicCare, a church-based social services organisation.

A few months earlier Nicole Rytir, who was a psychology honours student at the university, had been to see Dutton and requested a prescription of the contraceptive pill during her consultation, unaware of Dutton’s stance on contraception. As soon as Rytir mentioned the pill prescription, Dutton told her she’d have to see another doctor. “She was calm but quite stern,” said Rytir. “She was not very open or willing to discuss it with me.” Rytir says once the pill was mentioned, “she didn’t want to discuss anything else with me”.

Rytir then had to wait in reception until another doctor was available. She tells Crikey that while she was comfortable getting the pill prescription, if it was her first time or she was less confident, then “I probably would have been quite off put”. A sign in the reception centre now warns students that Dutton does not give out contraception, yet Crikey has heard of several incidents of students being unaware of this until they asked Dutton for contraception.

After the event, Rytir decided to put in a complaint to the university. Kent also filed an official complaint, supported by letters from psychologist Paul Martin and University of Canberra law lecturer Bruce Arnold, who both condemned Dutton’s actions in viewing homosexuality as a disorder that needed treatment.

When Arnold emailed his letter of support in September 2011 to university registrar Bruce Lines (who was conducting the investigation into the complaints about Dutton), Lines replied:

If the advice described was indeed provided by the practitioner than it is of course completely inappropriate and unacceptable in a university environment; in fact in any environment. I would be very concerned if this report was confirmed to be true.”

Yet when Lines sent Kent and Rytir his official response on behalf of the university in December 2011, his reaction was a little different. Lines noted that university medical practise should be “secular and non-judgemental” but that a number of complicated competing considerations meant that Dutton would not be asked to apologise or begin prescribing contraception and encouraging safe-sex practises, as Kent had requested. The response to Kent and Rytir from registrar Lines states:

The Director of Health and Counselling Centre, who is a practising medical doctor and an employee of the university, was asked to review your complaint. From the information she has been given, she has formed the opinion that there is no evidence that Dr Dutton has acted inappropriately from a treatment perspective.”

Jenny Weekees, the director of the Health and Counselling Centre, has not returned Crikey’s calls for comment.

The university’s response also notes that the Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Good Medical Practice states that medical professionals have the right “to not provide or directly participate in treatments to which you conscientiously object”, directly relating to Dutton being allowed to not prescribe contraception.

Lines also noted the university had considered “Legal advice obtained by the university regarding its contractual obligations with Dr Dutton”. Her licence agreement is due to expire at the end of this year.

Lines is currently on leave and was unable to be contacted. A University of Canberra spokesperson told Crikey: “The medical practitioners in the Health and Counselling Centre are private practitioners and are not employed by the university. The medical practitioners provide services on the university’s premises under the terms of a licence agreement. The only medical practitioner employed by the university is the Director of the Health and Counselling Centre.”

The president of the student association, James Pace, says he has homosexual friends that have seen Dutton and say she never pressured them for a hormone test or suggested there was anything wrong with them. He says a number of Catholic students have expressed their relief at having a doctor who was like-minded and could help them receive medical advice around their religious beliefs, and that Dutton was just one of a number of doctors that students could see.

We don’t feel that we should discriminate against her because of her faith,” said Pace. He thinks there is a group of students who want to remove the doctor from campus and that by going to visit Dutton and mentioning same-sex attraction, they were “trying to trap her into something”.

Kent denies he wants Dutton fired. “It’s not an issue for me that she’s still on campus, I’m perfectly happy for her to stay,” he told Crikey. “What I’m not perfectly fine with is the fact that she’s making prescriptions and giving advice with no medical basis.”

He says his biggest concern is for any student struggling with their sexuality who may visit Dutton, get told they could have a hormonal imbalance and get placed on hormone treatment in the hope of “fixing” their same-sex attraction. “That can do severe damage,” said Kent.

The University of Canberra spokesperson added that “students are advised to contact the ACT Health Services Commissioner if they wish to pursue a matter involving a private practitioner”.

28
  • 1
    Borisholly
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Seriously, do we have to put up with other people’s fantasies in the really important sphere of medicine.
    Please UC, employ people who are in this century and reality. This beggars belief in a discipline like science and medicine. Undergrads are drilled for years about following the ‘scientific method’, for worlds best practice.
    Science is science, religion is religion, don’t confuse the two and certainly don’t employ people in jobs that clearly compromise patient care.

  • 2
    Salamander
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    I think GPs have to stick to evidence-based medicine these days

  • 3
    margbozik
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    This. Is. Appalling.

    University is the time when many young people start expressing their sexuality. They need access to complete and accurate information, effective contraception and a non-judgemental and safe place to discuss their psychological and physical health concerns.

    It sounds like this doctor is unable to fulfill any of these requirements.

  • 4
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t it sort of weird that an on-campus medical doctor’s attraction would be that, “a number of Catholic students have expressed their relief at having a doctor who was like-minded and could help them receive medical advice around their religious beliefs”? One hopes the medical centre is also concerned to provide medical advice to dissident astrophysicists, to non-Darwinian evolutionists or to students of accountancy who have fallen into tax evasion. Of course a GP can be a great source for counselling about life and death and the meaning of everything but medicating homoerotic thoughts?

  • 5
    tinman_au
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Kent being a politics student kinda explains a few things.

    After he requested advice on the Billings and rhythm methods (neither of which would be required for same sex partners), he then “pressed further on whether his same-sex attraction was normal”, which the doctor could well have taken as concern/distress (which is probably also why she asked if he had been depressed lately and suggested counseling).

    And to top it off, she referred him to a hormone TEST, not a hormone course, which seems to me to be a sensible course of action he told her “that he’d been experiencing “thoughts about men”“. The way he states it in this story, it sounds like he told her the “man-thoughts” was a recent thing, so running some tests could well be a prudent action to rule out any other issues.

    The Exclusive Brethren thing was clearly out of line though.

  • 6
    Blair Martin
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    tinman_au: seriously or being tongue in cheek? Your words: “sensible course of action” and “prudent action to rule out other issues” - it sounds as if you agree with the backward Catholic doctor that any “man-thoughts” are deviant and need further study and a course of therapy to “cure” the malady.

  • 7
    msmith
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    One of the problems surrounding this issue is that the worst outcomes aren’t necessarily for confident openly gay adults, yet they’re generally the only people who speak out on the topic. The negative outcomes are spread far wider, for people who aren’t part of the openly gay ‘community’ and therefore don’t have anyone to speak up for them. IF you’re confident with your sexuality, AND reasonably educated about basic sexual health issues, AND able to shop around for a good doctor, you can get the health services you need, no problems. They’re not the people most at risk here. If the president of the student association asked his known homosexual friends whether they’d have issues with the doctor, he’s missing the point. They should be more concerned with youngsters who haven’t come out yet, and maybe even haven’t acted on their desires at this stage, and also those of their ‘straight’ friends who indulge in secret same-sexual activities on the side (more common than anyone cares to admit).
    Young people coming to terms with their sexuality are obviously vulnerable in many ways, and with non-openly-gay patients who keep their same-sex activity secret from their friends & family, this kind of false moralising from doctors can only make it even less likely that they’ll seek appropriate sexual health advice. I don’t see how a doctor can be said to be doing their job if they start each day with the belief that they don’t owe these people the same level of care they offer everyone else.
    If a compromise is needed, maybe they could place a large sign in the front of the office stating that ‘Dr X does not see patients regarding family planning/sexual-health/sexuality issues, except on a Christian faith-based basis’, with the proviso that another doctor is also always available at the same practice. Though personally, I’m not sure why any doctor who isn’t prepared to show the proper respect to all patients is still working in 2012. Surely the best health outcome for the patient is paramount, or else why be a GP?

  • 8
    tinman_au
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    I think your reading/believing too much in to this particular story Blair.

    Don’t forget, this is a story about a trainee politician that went to a doctors appointment to entrap someone he doesn’t agree with, so I don’t take Kents word with what happened as the only “truth”, unlike the SMH story about the EB doctor. He was plainly wrong and deserves his ban…

  • 9
    msmith
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I talked too much and forgot to say that it does look like a bit of entrapment was going on in this case, so the doctor should be given every chance to give their side of things etc. Labelling this one GP as a bad egg who must be banished seems inappropraite.
    My concern is more with the fact that there are lots of other GPs out there with similar or worse attitudes, and that the patients who are most likely to suffer due to mistreatment are exactly the type who are least likely to speak out. Since the medical profession doesn’t seemed to have accepted that this is a major problem with serious negative health outcomes for affected patients, I can understand the motivation behind the student in the story.

  • 10
    Warren Joffe
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    And I thought my generation were adequately anti-Catholic as part of our rationalist stance! But setting up a conscientious sounding GP with words which strongly suggested he needed at least a placebo for something is a pretty petty performance. Let’s not forget he was asking for help and apparently distressed at not being adequately heterosexual. While most homosexuality is no doubt genetic or congenital plenty of homosexual people have fathered children (and that’s without considering lesbianism) and can legally aspire to. Assuming they are not under deep cover with the female partner it is hardly beyond the bounds of possibility that a boost in testosterone might get them over the hump (so to speak).

  • 11
    Nicole Kuter
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Aside from the alledged comments from the doctor about same-sex relationships, I would like to point something out about the pill.
    I went to the university for four years. There was always a sign on her office to inform people she did not prescribe the pill. Always. It was common knowledge. It hasn’t been put up recently. There were several other doctors for the pill. I think it is an unfair attack on this doctor regarding her personal choice not to issue it.

  • 12
    Borisholly
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s about time we all remember that we deliberately run a democracy that separates Church and State for very good reason. This is a great example.
    If this Dr was working in private practice, not a publicly owned and run university, you might garner some support. However, I see absolutely no excuse for a GP to refuse to deliver legally and widely available contraceptive advice or prescriptions because of his or her religious affiliation.

  • 13
    AR
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Yet another example of private phantasy/delusion intruding into a tax payer funded reality.
    If people believe in the need to jam their fingers in a car door thrice a day, yea unto the great glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is their problem.
    When they insist that others do so it a public scandal.

  • 14
    Christopher Nagle
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Has anyone ever heard about getting a second medical opinion. The good doctor is perfectly entitled to practice her craft according to her religious beliefs. The fact that such beliefs are currently unfashionable in university campuses is irrelevant. Suck it up and start exercising the tolerance that universities are supposed to be about. And now that everyone knows what the Doctor’s ‘sexual orientation’ is, don’t go and see her if you are unlikely to like what she is saying.

  • 15
    Scott
    Posted Wednesday, 17 October 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Another non story to add to the growing list. Baiting a catholic doctor about sudden homosexual thoughts but still receiving sensible advise of more testing and counseling..standard for concerns regarding recent changes in personality or behavior. Shock, horror! Hardly grounds for dismissal from any sort of medical position.
    The prescription of the pill is again a non issue. The student could still obtain a prescription from another doctor by waiting a few extra minutes….Guess what, sometimes you have to wait to get what you want, kiddies. Welcome to the real world.

  • 16
    drsmithy
    Posted Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    I went to the university for four years. There was always a sign on her office to inform people she did not prescribe the pill. Always. It was common knowledge. It hasn’t been put up recently. There were several other doctors for the pill. I think it is an unfair attack on this doctor regarding her personal choice not to issue it.

    Would you be defending that sign if it said “whites only” ?

  • 17
    Stephen
    Posted Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Plainly, what UC is doing is wrong, and they are circumnavigating it with weasel words.

  • 18
    anneenna
    Posted Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Is the writer of the article advocating for a type of secularism that represses the expression of strongly-held beliefs in the public sphere?

    I prefer a secularism in which freedom of religious beliefs coexists alongside freedom of sexualities, and in which people can publicly express their beliefs and dialogue with each other with an open-minded puzzlement of why they might identify in certain ways.

    It sounds like the woman was upfront about her position on contraception - (which while I disagree with it, is scientifically substantiated -as far as science can substantiate such things- and practiced successfully by many people) and actually gave an answer about the ‘natural’ question which is in line with most scholarly (scientific and humanities-based) suspicion of the whole category of ‘the natural’- you can never be conclusive about what is natural, and besides, appealing to the ‘natural’ is an essentialist crutch that does not help find new insights in an argument.

    I think referring him to Centacare was not wise however since he never identified himself as Catholic so it’s inappropriate for her to do that.

    One of the things I support is encouraging an open-ended evolution of religions in response to debates in broader society. If you demonise publicly identifying religious people, you create an us vs them situation that often closes down the space for internal debate and the expression of diverse identities. It’s a live and sensitive question within the Catholic church at the moment that the hierarchy has failed to give much humane direction to, however other people have been rethinking this stuff- how to rethink sexuality and have an ethical orientation to these questions. Can you make space for a fumbling, bumbling progress in this domain or are you going to essentialise her belief system? Are you going to make her a sacrificial lamb whose story does not further any dialogue within catholicism?

    Furthermore it sounds like the student in question did not identify as gay in the appointment- he did not see his thoughts as part of him, and wanted her to give that advice. How would you distinguish this from someone who wanted gender reassignment hormones?

  • 19
    mikeb
    Posted Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Kent undermines his position significantly by intentionally seeking to entrap the doctor through his actions. He obviously sought the “consultation” with pre-conceived ideas of what he wanted to find, and set a course of action that affirmed to his mind those ideas. I feel sorry for the doctor & it could only undermine her doctor-patient relationships with new patients.

  • 20
    tinman_au
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    As other people have pointed out, there are other doctors that work there, if folks have a hangup about seeing “the evil christian doctor”, go see one of the others, it’s a great thing, freedom of choice…

  • 21
    tinman_au
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    drsmithy: “Would you be defending that sign if it said “whites only” ?”

    Seriously, what justifies bringing skin colour in to this? Some doctors refuse to prescribe weight loss pills (and other medications), would you pull the colour card on them as well?

    If Kent had gone in and said he was gay, and the doctor had suggested she could “cure” it, then yeah, she’d be as wrong as the EB doctor. But. That. Is. Not. What. Happened.

  • 22
    drsmithy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    As other people have pointed out, there are other doctors that work there, if folks have a hangup about seeing “the evil christian doctor”, go see one of the others, it’s a great thing, freedom of choice…

    …When you have it.

    What do you do when the only doctor there is the one who won’t treat you because their imaginary friend tells them not to ?

  • 23
    drsmithy
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Seriously, what justifies bringing skin colour in to this?

    Because it puts the situation in the appropriate context - a refusal to prescribe someone legal and common treatment because of irrational beliefs and irrelevant factors.

    Some doctors refuse to prescribe weight loss pills (and other medications), would you pull the colour card on them as well?

    If the basis for their refusal to treat is not founded in any sound medical, legal or ethical basis, absolutely.

    If Kent had gone in and said he was gay, and the doctor had suggested she could “cure” it, then yeah, she’d be as wrong as the EB doctor. But. That. Is. Not. What. Happened.

    What happened was someone was refused contraception because the doctor in question (presumably) thinks it’s immoral.

    So if, let’s say, a doctor thought Atheism was immoral, would you argue they should be allowed to turn away Atheists ? How about if they’re the only doctor for a hundred miles ?

  • 24
    Borisholly
    Posted Friday, 19 October 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Being a doctor is a scientific profession, not a personal opinion to dispense at will. If this doctor holds religious beliefs, that’s all well and good, keep them to herself. If she doesn’t like gay people or contraception, I’m sure no one will force her to be gay or take the pill. Her profession is that of a doctor in a public facility that has certain expectations and responsibilities to provide the best possible standard of care to everyone, using preferably best practice, best scientific evidence based knowledge available. Not her personal, religious fairies at the bottom of the garden reasoning. To think otherwise is at best naive.

  • 25
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    The great thing about freedom of choice is that the doctor in question can go and set up in private practice.
    And so she should.
    If onl y these principled personal positions adopted by members of this minority religious community extended to a denunciation of pervert priests preying upon children.
    Otherwise this selective moral posturing looks very much like a smokescreen for serious, internal moral failings in this minority religious community.

  • 26
    justin cotton
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Regardless of what the president of the student union says (and some of his best friends are ‘homosexual’), this woman has clearly said what is alleged. Why would the student make it up? I say she is a Catholic homophobe and should not be in that position - no room for base ideologies and it is putting young people’s mental health at risk.

  • 27
    justin cotton
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Seriously Mikeb, if this doctor said what she did, how can you justify that? Maybe you are homophobic too. You don’t tell people who are homosexual that they should take a pill to treat it. That’s absurd, offensive … and this coming from a frigging doctor no less.

  • 28
    justin cotton
    Posted Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    ha ha spot the bigots in the posts above! Warren Joffe.
    Let’s all medicate any homo-erotic thoughts!

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...