The American Board of Obstectrics & Gynecology (ABOG) has recently announced it will be far more stringent in its judgment of gynecologists with a Diplomate certification from them.  It has recently released released a document precisely outlining their specialty.  Part of it is an adamant insistence that diplomates refrain from treating male patients except as follows:

1. Active government service,

2. Evaluation of fertility,

3. Genetic counseling and testing of a couple,

4. Expedited partner treatment of sexually transmitted diseases,

5. Administration of immunizations,

6. Management of transgender conditions,

7. Emergency care when the Diplomate is required by their hospital to participate in general emergency care,

8. Family planning services, not to include vasectomy, and

9. Newborn circumcision.

The problems with this position are several and have significant impact not only on the health of soon-to-be former male clients of gynecologists but also on female patients, as restricting gynecologists' practices may well discourage new doctors from pursuing women-specific health studies to pursue the ABOG certification.  As this New York Times article discusses, it is entirely possible for doctors specializing in women's health issues to have male patients who need their skills and have a place in their research relevant to members of both sexes.

Another important point to make is that the times have changed around such things as who ought to have access to what doctors based merely on patients' indellible physical characteristics.  In the past in America, it was considered by many to be legally and morally acceptable to have race-segregated hospitals, hospital wards, and medical practices.  But those times have, thankfully, passed, and such are now legally prohibited and considered morally repellant.

In addition, there are specialties that serve mostly men (urology being an example), but nothing in their specialty insists their diplomates accept only male patients-- nor should they.  Even if 95% of urologists' patients are men, for the 5% who are women, would it be fair to threaten to revoke urologists' diplomate certifications because they have even a few female patients?  How about even if having those patients contributed to urology's betterment as a specialty? If so, can anyone imagine that such a condition would not be objected to as exclusionary, sexist, contrary to medicine's best interests, patients' best interests, etc.?  Yet when a very similar situation arises when the sexes are reversed, the certifying board proudly declares that the specialty is meant for the treatment of people of only one sex, with the treating of the other being permitted only in emergency or other particular situations.  (Strangely, it allows for the circumcision of infant males; how that is relevant to treating women's health issues isn't really too clear.)

We, the signatories to this petition, believe ABOG should revoke this unnecessarily restrictive and blatantly sexist diplomate requirement that, if violated by its diplomates, is viewed by ABOG as grounds for penalty or revocation of the diplomate's certification.  To continue to maintain this requirement is indeed sexist, restricts unnecessarily the practice of diplomates on pain of certification revocation, contributes to a reduction in positive outcomes by reducing or eliminating diagnostic interaction between male patients and knowledgable doctors, and will likely make new doctors question the wisdom of taking up gynecology as a specialty since the number of potential patients they may get in general practice will be reduced by half.

In short, we call upon ABOG to do the right thing.