From: RANDY_GOLDBERG <[email-masked]>

AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS, the weekly newsletter of the American
Medical Association                                           JUNE 28, 1993

                      NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS
                       Brian McCormick, AMNEWS Staff

CHICAGO - In response to pleas for inclusion from gay and lesbian
physicians, the AMA bylaws now specifically bar discrimination in
membership based on sexual orientation.
     The AMA House of Delegates' move ends a four-year fight to
amend the bylaws' anti-discrimination language.  "Sexual orienta-
tion" was added to a list of other protected categories, such as
age, race, gender, national origin, religion and disability.  The
bylaws say membership in the AMA or its constituent groups "shall
not be denied or abridged" for reasons related to any of these
categories.
     AMA officials said the action, recommended by the Board of
Trustees, merely codified existing policy.  They insisted that no
gay physician had ever been denied AMA membership based on
homosexuality.  And the move does not mean the AMA "condones any
particular lifestyle," said Immediate-Past-President John Clowe,
MD.
     But supporters saw the vote as an act of tolerance and
acceptance that came only after an educational effort.
     Meanwhile, opponents called the vote an endorsement of
"morally evil" homosexuals.  And they warned many state and
county medical societies will balk at changing their bylaws to
comply with the AMA.

     BIAS CITED IN TESTIMONY
     Several gay doctors testified to the hatred and bigotry they
have faced from peers, adding their hope that as a symbolic
gesture the house action could improve their plight.
     "As a first- and second-year student, I saw informational
posters about gay and lesbian groups defaced by my fellow stu-
dents," said Matthew Brennan, MD.  "In my third and fourth year,
I regularly saw gay patients referred to as faggots and I worried
about the care they received from bigoted attending physicians
and residents."
     Dr. Brennan added that when he took time off after his
lover's death from AIDS, med school officials encouraged him to
conceal the reason, saying his residency could be threatened.
     Ben Schatz, of the American Assn. of Physicians for Human
Rights, a national gay and lesbian group, said he hears frequent
reports of bias.  He was told of a Texas doctor whose job offer
was rescinded after his homosexuality was discovered, and of a
gay student told not to pursue a pediatrics residency.
     Chicago family physician Wes Cook, MD, whose practice
consists mostly of heterosexual patients, said he was extremely
fearful about revealing himself as a gay physician in a room of
peers.  But he denied opponents' complaints that gay doctors were
trying to advance some larger political agenda.
     "Our only agenda is to be included in a meaningful way. 
There remains a need to develop progressive policies related to
gay and lesbian patients, and by not availing itself more of gay
and lesbian doctors, the AMA is missing an opportunity," he said.

     TIME TO 'DO THE RIGHT THING'
     The arguments swayed many delegates who previously opposed
the changes, including Richard Fields, MD, of Virginia.
     "There comes a time when we need to do the right thing,
whether it's for the right or wrong reason," he said.  "It
bothers me deeply to hear a young physician say that he is afraid
to be in this room, or to be among colleagues in a hospital
cafeteria."
     Other delegates seemed swayed by the support of the board,
which opposed previous amendment efforts.
     In arguing for the change, Dr. Clowe referred to the large
number of corporations and associations that have already taken
the step.  He also pointed to petitions from students at several
schools calling for the amendment.
     Some opponents, however, criticized the board for twisting
arms to secure the necessary two-thirds vote.
     California delegate Sharon Hirsh, MD, an early supporter of
the change, commended the board leadership, and supporters'
persistence.
     "There was a great deal of homophobia among the delegates
when this was first introduced," she said.  "But through the
debate over the years the house has been educated.
     "Most of them now see that these are not evil people.  They
are ordinary physicians who want to be a part of this
organization because it represents them and their patients."
     Backers have long argued that the nondiscrimination policy
was a membership issue, with homosexual doctors and their sup-
porters offended by the current policy.

     CRITICS HOLD FAST
     But not all delegates were supportive.  Some argued for a
resolution reiterating AMA nondiscrimination policy in lieu of
the bylaws change.  Others opposed any action suggesting an
endorsement of homosexuals.
     "The AMA does not discriminate, and we should not support
the very small minority of gay and lesbian doctors who seek
inclusion of the term sexual orientation," said Georgia delegate
C. Emory Bohler, MD.  "Let's not screw up the bylaws."
     Pennsylvania alternate delegate John Lane, MD, said he had
sympathy for homosexuals but could not morally accept them.  And
he said he was offended by a policy that linked sexual
orientation with the other categories protected from discrimina-
tion.
     "Age, gender, race and creed are not morally evil," he said.
     John Watson, MD, from the American College of Nuclear
Medicine, was concerned about opening a door for further conces-
sions.  "We are treating this as a small verbiage change, and it
is much more complicated."
     He predicted that the bylaws change could pave the way for
AMA endorsement of insurance rights for same-sex couples or other
controversial issues.  "We are saying to the public that was
accept what many view as a deviant lifestyle and we endorse it."
     But other delegates noted the AMA has been able to adopt
non-discrimination language related to women and racial minori-
ties without endorsing all other aspects of the women's movement
or the civil rights movement.

     IMPACT ON FEDERATION
     Some of the stiffest resistance came from physicians who
feared that adoption would require state and county societies to
pass similar language.
     "Is the AMA prepared to force this on state or county
societies that see this as unnecessary or abhorrent?" asked South
Carolina's Walter Robinson, MD.
     Sidney Foster, MD, chairman of the AMA's Council on Consti-
tution and Bylaws, said the AMA did not have the authority to
force those changes.
     AMA General Counsel Kirk Johnson added, however, that the
AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs is authorized to
hear physician complaints of discrimination from state and local
societies for any reason, including sexual orientation.  That
authority predates this bylaws change, he added.
     If the council determined a society was discriminatory,
Johnson said, the society could be expelled from the federation
that includes the AMA, state, county and national specialty
societies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproduced without permission under the Fair Use Doctrine.

************************************************************************
______
\    /   Randy Goldberg                  *      Lesbian Gay and Bisexual
 \  /    New York Medical College        *         Medical Students of
  \/     Class of 1996                   *               New York
************************************************************************