Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objective: Medical conscientious objection is a federally protected right of physicians to refuse participation in medically indicated services or research activities that are incompatible with their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. Individual provider objections to gender-affirming surgery have been documented, however the prevalence of such objections is unknown. Our study aimed to characterize physician objections to gender-affirming surgery in plastic surgery and urology residencies and to assess related institutional policies.
Design, Setting, Participants: A cross-sectional electronic survey was administered to program leadership of 239 accredited US plastic surgery and urology residencies from February to October 2023. Trainee exposure to gender-affirming surgery, programmatic experience with objections, and presence and content of institutional objection policies were collected. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine associations with objectors.
Results: One-hundred and twenty-four plastic surgery (n = 59) and urology (n = 65) residencies completed the survey, representing a 52% response rate. Most programs included didactic training (n = 107, 86%) and direct clinical exposure (n = 98, 79%) to gender-affirming surgery. Few (n = 24, 19%) endorsed existent objection policies. Sixteen programs (13%) experienced objections to gender-affirming surgery by trainees (n = 15), faculty (n = 6), and staff (n = 1). Neither geographic region, exposure to gender-affirming surgery, nor presence of objection policies significantly contributed to programmatic objections. Programs with formal objection policies reported increased confidence in addressing future objection events (p = 0.017).
Conclusions: Objection to gender-affirming surgery is a rare, but plausible occurrence amongst plastic surgery and urology trainees. Residency programs should consider anticipatory policies to protect patients and, when feasible, provide reasonable accommodations for objecting trainees.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.08.022 | DOI Listing |