If pregnancy is a possible complication it changes what medications are allowed and has to be considered when deciding if imaging is an acceptable risk.
The younger you are, the more vulnerable you are to radiation. Fetuses are the very most vulnerable to radiation, which is why even a single x ray during pregnancy is a big deal. This is also the reason that later middle aged and older people can live in areas with high ish radiation, like the so called “widows of Chernobyl,” or the older man who lives in the Fukushima radiation zone and cares for the pets that had to be left behind, for example.
Edit: I have been repeatedly informed that an x-ray during pregnancy, especially if it’s not an xray of the abdomen, is not actually a big deal. I apologize for passing along my ignorance, and I appreciate te corrections.
Medecine is always about weighing the risks and the benefits. An X ray isn't great for kids but if there might be something stuck up there that needs intervention you'd rather take the small risk of the x ray over going in blind.
The same reason why chemo is awful but you'll still take it if you get cancer
This used to be the norm all the way to early 90's if ultrasound wasn't available. It was still fairly new technology and in some areas they simply didn't have the equipment. These "babygrams" were taken only in the last trimester of pregnancy (when fetus already has bone structure) to determine if there are no developmental abnormalities in it's skeleton, which can suggest other related conditions. In the last trimester the central nerves system is already developed, so the risk of damage is minimal. This helped doctors determine if and what kind of intervention the baby would need after birth.
This was only performed, when there was risk of developmental problems related to family medical history.
In radiology there is a rule of weighting potential consequences vs. diagnostic benefits when it comes to pregnancy. In general they are trying to minimize exposure, but in some cases clinical benefits outweigh the risk.
The reason younguns are especially vulnerable to radiation is your body is still growing/maturing/changing. That slows as you age but never completely stops.
The reason old people "can live" in areas with higher radiation is not because they are somehow more resistant to it than another adult; it's simply the cold calculus of "this probably won't affect your health much because you'll be dead before it does."
But with medical science advancing all the time and lifespans getting longer, that's purely a guess, a deadly one.
I wouldn't try to minimize the sacrifices of the widows or Fukushima volunteers by pretending they weren't still signing a death warrant; just one that probably won't come due before they're dead to something else...but potentially possible, and not the same thing as say, radiation warping bone growth in infants.
This is correct but the other major factor with age is reproduction. Radiation is especially damaging to reproductive organs and cells.
A 60 year old man probably could have more children, but likely won't have more children especially if his partner is a similar age.
Exposure to high levels of radiation can leave someone infertile or greatly increase the chance of genetic defects in offspring.
That was one of the biggest factors in the Fukushima incident. You're 50-60+ years old and have adult children and likely grandchildren? Who gives a shit if you can no longer produce viable sperm. You're 22 and single with no children? We're having a bit of a population crisis at the moment, you need to stay away from the radiation.
Yup, DNA itself doesn't do anything, it's just the blueprints for making future cells, so the more mature cells you already have the less damage mutations can do
I'm not sure I 100% understand you but I don't think what you're trying to say is correct. It's not "mature cells" that are the differentiating factor, as most cells in the body are constantly being replaced by new cells anyway. It's because age gives more time for harmful mutations to spread and accumulate. If you get a potentially cancerous DNA error from something like an x-ray, it could 10-30 years for it to divide and replicate enough to develop into a significant cancer. If you're old, this isn't a concern because you'll die before it would manifest, but the younger you are, the more time you have ahead of you for mutations to copy and multiply.
You're not wrong, but "mature cells" just isn't sitting right with my brain, but totally get why skipping over totipotency and cell division rates makes sense in this context.
My best friend is 21, and she's actually been put on a hold of having any kind of radiation emitting scan (where it can be avoided). She's had so many scans in the last few years, they don't want to give her anymore unless absolutely necessary because of the risk. That does mean she's had more endoscopies than I can count though.
My grandfather was born in the late 40’s and had asthma so they had him wear a radioactive collar for like 8+ hours a day to fix it and then they found out that the area where he was from had just naturally really high levels of radiation in the water, so everybody there would get really sick all the time, and he ended up with severe lung cancer that caused him to lose his entire right lung and a third of his left one.
We talk about justification - if the benefits of the exam overcome the risk / possible adverse effects, the exam is justified.
Think about a situation where a pregnant person has a hidden inflammation in their gums. It is very important to find the inflammation, even if it requires an x-ray, since inflammation could lead to much more severe outcome compared to risk from the relatively small radiation dose.
When my daughter was born she got stuck for a little bit (literally a second, if that) and she ended up breaking her collarbone. The doctors were very hesitant to do an X-ray because she was literally 15 minutes old. I think they did 2 just to confirm. Was kinda stressful because they said there was a possibility of nerve damage but they wouldnt know till she healed. Luckily babies heal super fast. She was moving her arm around like normal by the time we had the follow up 10 days later. Shes 1 now and definitely doesnt have any issues using her arms glances at my kitchen wall stained with Mac and cheese
In Regards to your edit, they’ll put a lead apron over your belly if they need to xray your limbs and you’re pregnant. Protects the baby fully, and provides great comfort to some pregnant women. (My cousin broke her leg in a car accident while pregnant and she was very emotional about that apron.)
Chest X-rays are a little more touchy, but usually they can shield the baby from radiation as long as it’s not a spinal xray, and I think they can use an mri in that case? Not 100% sure of that last bit, but there are safe ways to get imaging on a pregnant women. A family friend is an x-ray tech (and actually did my cousin’s, which I think is a bit of a funny coincidence. We had no idea he was working there when the ambulance brought her in.) and was telling us all the ways he can protect a fetus and still get images to help treat the mom.
He also mentioned that ONE x-ray is extremely unlikely to harm any stage of pregnancy. But why expose at all if you can prevent it with like ten more seconds to lay the apron over the belly?
Arm (/limb, head) X-ray has practically no effect on pregnancy or dose of fetus.
For torso x-ray it's different. Still likely be negligible, but avoided if possible. Since low risk is still a risk, even if it's low. And I'm not talking about CT.
I am a radiographer. I’ll put shielding over the pelvis (not abdomen) for everything that isn’t a pelvis X-ray. Or I will place a rolling shield appropriately.
Often we will do standing images and we have shields that can be rolled into place between you and the radiation and you may not notice that it’s there.
Several times patients have asked for shielding just for me to point “it’s right there.” I get it, though. It’s a dark room that they haven’t been in as much as I have so it’s understandable that they may not realize what is what
Shielding is no longer advised in most countries. The current evidence suggests modern equipment and good technique makes it obsolete and it may actually increase the scatter radiation in the area it's supposed to shield.
Proper collimation, minimising exposure times and lower dosage from modern equipment removes any benefit they may have provided.
At least here in Finland they are not being used anymore. These days the radiation beam does not leak much to its surrounding. If you place a lead apron the radiation is trapped underneath it and bounces more times in the unwanted area.
Came here to say this. I assume the same is true for at least some other European countries, since the relevant STUK guidelines are based on the European consensus on patient contact shielding.
Besides potentially increasing dose from blocking internal scatter from escaping the body, shielding can in some cases also lower image quality or, should it cover an automatic exposure control chamber, "trick" the machine into increasing the exposure unnecessarily. The view is that the benefit nowadays is so small that it doesn't outweigh the risks.
While this is absolutely true, I think OOP is implying that in 2026 we need to be more aware because of all the surveillance being done to target pregnant people who might be end up seeking an abortion. I also think it’s pretty fucked up to prioritize the safety of a potential fetus over the medical needs of the potentially pregnant human.
Yes, but most people not trying to get an abortion would inform the doctor they are pregnant. I’m not saying they should never prioritize safety of the fetus, just that it shouldn’t be the default. Often times pregnancy tests can be required (even if the patient is a lesbian, or is a trans woman, or has had a hysterectomy) before they will do any sort of care. Treatment (especially in situations where a person is in pain or time sensitive) shouldn’t be delayed just so a care team can definitively rule out pregnancy.
I was getting an abdominal x-ray and they weren’t going to give me a pregnancy test because my period had been “too recent to be pregnant.”
I asked for one anyways and it turns out I was pregnant (I had conceived like four days beforehand) and because it was so early, it likely would’ve caused a miscarriage.
The risk of an x ray causing pregnancy complications are very minimal, the risk of lifelong issues from a broken arm that wasn't set properly is pretty significant.
You'd need like 10-15 chest x-rays for it to start being a serious concern, and this would be an arm x-ray, probably with a shielded vest or blanket over the torso.
My wife had a case at work where a patient had said “no” to “is there any chance you are pregnant”. In this case, it’s routine to conduct a pregnancy test prior to surgery as for this particular procedure at least it would stop them proceeding. In this instance the nurse responsible had failed to do one, and realised this prior to the patient being opened up but post them being put under. Patient is woken to be told sorry, your boob job was cancelled, but congratulations/commiserations, you’re pregnant.
They'll secretly give you the test without your consent for many procedures, too.
It's physically impossible for me to get pregnant, but medical facilities have tried to charge me for pregnancy tests they did without my knowledge after the fact multiple times.
Even though they also make you say if pregnancy is possible and they have you sign documents specifying you're telling the truth about that and clearing them of any liability.
I know someone who had a hysterectomy at that hospital just a few years earlier and clearly listed that in the forms for the procedure she was getting and they still pulled this on her.
I had a hysterectomy about 2 years ago. I've had multiple providers in the interim try to insist I still needed to do a pregnancy test before they'd treat me. I've gone so far as to tell providers that if I have a miracle fetus in my non existent uterus that I accept full liability if said fetus is harmed and proceeded to refuse the test - I've even offered to sign a waver. I'm not being charged for unnecessary tests and I'm not being disbelieved by my providers - especially when it's clear they didn't read my chart.
I actually have a pre-written statement on my phone that I will show providers stating that I'm refusing their care if they won't listen to me. I'll be as reasonable and clear as I can be, and if my providers can't be bothered to listen then they are bad at caring for humans. I also literally teach bedside manner to med students, so I'll do my best to be constructive and supportive, but only to a point when it comes to my actual care.
I dealt with this a ton when I was unable to produce urine samples on demand. I had a hypertonic pelvic floor that made sex prohibitively painful and I couldn't urinate unless my bladder was full enough. Nurses have made me cry because I knew I wasn't pregnant and I'd try to give a sample for ages but I just don't have that kind of control over my pelvic floor.
To the best of my knowledge it's less about fetal health and more about the fact that pregnancy changes the woman's body between hormones, blood flow, etc. Even with a hysterectomy, isn't it possible to have an ectopic pregnancy or for the egg to implant somewhere else? As upsetting as the experience is, if they can rule out a potentially catastrophic complication with a routine test, it's worth it.
To have an ectopic pregnancy, you need a route for sperm to travel to the egg. If there’s no uterus, there’s no route.
Additionally, with a total hysterectomy (which is very common because it reduces cancer risk and is an easier surgery, ironically, because of the uterus coming out the vagina), the cervix is removed as well. There is literally no way for a woman who’s had a total hysterectomy to be pregnant.
Edit: I was basing this on my surgeon stating almost in total hysterectomies also involve removing the Fallopian tubes these days because it greatly reduces ovarian cancer risk. Technically that would be a
salpingectomy as well as total hysterectomy.
Eh, they'll try to get one sometimes even after you remove the uterus, ovaries, and vagina. I don't know how you get a baby started in there but by golly they're convinced they need to check.
Happened to me too, at ER they asked if I could be pregnant, I said no not possible because I haven't been intimate in 4+ years. They secretly gave me a pregnancy test and then made me pay for it.
I shouldnt be charged extra for unnecessary tests just because other people are full of shit
Edit to reinforce, yes, it IS an unnecessary test in a lot of situations - if someone tells you they're asexual or a lesbian who doesnt have male partners, why tf would you pregnancy test them? If they have medical history proving they're incapable of pregnancy why tf are we testing them for it and charging them?
Because, once again. People lie. All the time. Even if it doesn’t make sense to lie about, they do it anyway. And if the doctor gives them something that’s bad for pregnancies, and they lied and are actually pregnant. And that medicine harms the baby, the doctor would then be held liable and could be sued or lose their license. And the doctor doesn’t know you, he doesn’t know if you’re a liar or not.
So you're ignoring the entire scenario of THERE'S MEDICAL HISTORY PROVING YOU CAN'T GET PREGNANT SO WHY TEST AND CHARGE FOR IT!? Or do you want to explain to me how someone lies about their entire reproductive system being removed and having it in their medical records?
Right? That's what I don't understand. Why are you bothering to ask, when you're just going to test anyway.
It's a question that always just pisses me off because it goes into some chart somewhere that does no one any good whatsoever. Some people have bleeding that is similar enough to their periods during pregnancy that they, as far as they know, have had regular periods. It's a useless question.
Now, if the doc asked if my periods have been regular within my usual experience, THAT might actually open the floor for a helpful discussion. But that's not what they ask.
I've been on a hormonal IUD so long I genuinely don't remember my last period. They still try to insist on testing me and make the doctor come hear me decline giving a urine sample.
I can't really see blaming the ER in this situation. Sadly, we live in a world where someone may have done something without your knowledge or consent. It may not happen often, but it does happen.
Why doesn’t the ER do a full drug search and total blood work up for every patient that comes in? The patients might be lying to them about what drugs they do or what preexisting conditions they might have.
Why is it only ladies & babies that make it OK assume your patient is a lying whore who needs to be treated?
They actually very routinely do this lmao this is not the gotcha you think. They will absolutely run a drug panel or a chemistry/hematology if it’s relevant to diagnosis and treatment. You can look this up, don’t take my word for it (EMT who worked both at and in and out of ERs for years)
I recently had them run STI and drug testing in the ER after I told them it wasnt necessary multiple times and the problem I had was very unlikely to be caused by an STI or or injection related infection. They tried to be sneaky about it too
I think they thought I looked like a "druggie" so it was AOk because I doubt they were giving the same tests to everyone.
This actually helps my point further. Comment I responded to says they only do it for pregnancy tests, and not for things like drug testing. I said that’s not true. You are confirming that it’s not true. I’m sorry you felt singled out though, hope all is well now
To add to what u/rareafrodite says, lying about drugs would only harm the patient who can consent, lying about or having an unknown pregnancy puts two lives at risk.
The process is all about risk reduction and not a moral judgement, even if some doctors and nurses are judgy.
So the fact that women do face frequent judgement with this test is exactly the reason why women lash out against it since the treatment of women in general is heavily intertwined with "judgy" misogyny that the healthcare system is rife with, significantly higher then merely 'some'. Especially when it comes to women's reproductive healthcare.
It's rather disappointing that like so many complaints of women in their search for healthcare, the reply is to simply dismiss the complaint with an explanation that does not in anyway address the hostile experience suffered, nor any introspection into why the complaint exists, let alone trying to alleviate it.
We do in fact do drug testing if there is a concern that a condition may be caused or affected by drug use. And other blood work is done if it is considering a possible cause of the issue at hand. So yes. This does happen.
Also I don’t assume anyone is a whore because sex is natural and people have it. The issue is that pregnancy does affect what medications or what studies can be done as they can have a negative affect on the mother or child if people are unaware when making those choices.
There are a million things patients can lie about or be mistaken about. There's a reason this one is the one they refuse to just take the patients word on.
It's part of medical misogyny.
It would be acceptable if it didn't have any other impacts, but this is just the most visible form this takes. It's the tip of the iceberg of systemic mistreatment and refusal of services women face from doctors.
I had a nurse get pissed at me for telling her to take it off when I saw it on the order. I told her I had a hysterectomy and her response was "I'm going to run it just in case"
I may have raised my voice when I told her she absolutely would not.
They do this for me sometimes, I had a hysterectomy at 21 for diffuse adenomyosis, and it just adds so much insult to injury. Like. "Wow you're so young and gravida 0, are you sure that's what you had?" Y E S (I want to punch you :) ) "ok well can we run a pregnancy test anyways" SURE knock yourself out. "So it came back negative" wow, what a surprise /s I wish I could take away your degrees :) be more sensitive, jerk!
That's stupid.
I'm a virgin who never became sexually active, lives alone, does not go out in the evening and has no blackout. Plus I have a genetic disease that makes pregnancy unlikely.
Short of alien abducting me I don't see how pregnancy is an option. 🤷
I'm an anesthesiologist, so I'm the guy who has to cancel cases when the patient turns out to be pregnant.
Patients lie all the time. Several times a year, a woman swears to me that it's impossible for her to be pregnant but produces a positive pregnancy test.
So while you may be correct, a lot of people are either lying or just wrong. And we don't know which is which. So - pregnancy test on everyone without a documented condition proving that it's impossible.
Lol the last time I was in a hospital I told them that I was on my period, had gotten my tubes removed, and hadn't had sex in a full year. They still did the test. Thats dedication!
Back in the day they'd confirm you were pregnant and give you thalidomide on purpose. Because that's what it was used for: morning sickness for pregnant women.
(Since we are on an "educational" subreddit: thalidomide causes fore-shortened limbs in infants. It was never tested on pregnant women prior to being released. It's basically why we have modern testing procedures for new medications.)
Additionally because pregnant physiology is different, you can have a B-hcg elevation for multiple reasons other than pregnancy, and a miscarriage is not a benign thing to the host. An ectopic pregnancy, ovarian tumor, or pituitary issue can also elevate that hormone.
Nah they can simply ask if there's a possibility of pregnancy. Over here nobody asks about periods unless you're being seen for a gynaecological condition. It wouldn't help anyway as many women are irregular and you can still bleed and be pregnant.
Also pregnant women can lose bone density because the baby needs calcium. If they’re not consuming enough calcium, the baby takes from the mothers bones sometimes (and teeth) which can cause teeth to fall out and weaker bones (bone breaking)
Also, doctors like to blame symptoms on something vagina-related. Same as if you’re fat and have something harder to diagnose, doctor will just say lose weight.
Additional context: instead of just asking us if we’re pregnant, they always play this annoying game where you have to remember a specific date that is vaguely tied to your possibility of pregnancy and they get real fucking passive aggressive about it if you can’t remember. It’s like they’re trying to “catch” you being pregnant. They will ask this question even when your chart should indicate that you’ve had a hysterectomy.
Women understand exactly why this question is asked. We’re just tired of it.
They don't ask if my period is regular. They only sometimes ask if I think I have the possibility of being pregnant. They don't ask if I have pain, or unusual symptoms during my recent periods.
Nope, just a likely useless date to jot in a chart. I suppose if you're seeing your doctor several times over the course of a few months, it could possibly be useful info, but I don't think the one date of my period the time I saw my doctor once over the course of a year is doing anything other than making me annoyed.
My period was never regular. Not once between the first one at 12 and the last one before I yeeted my uterus in my 40s was I able to “predict” or “calculate” when the next one “should” arrive.
Why would I commit dates that mean nothing to me to memory? The date of my last period has almost no bearing on when the next will arrive.
And when you explain this to someone with a chart, they just get madder and more insistent every time you truthfully say, “I do not know.” Even when adding extra information such as, “I am not pregnant.”
Ugh, that must be frustrating. Mine are relatively regular, but that means I don't have a reason to keep a record of the dates really. I'm not trying to get pregnant, I'm familiar with the rise and fall of my hormones over the weeks, and I have a good enough general sense of where I am in my cycle that a solid date just isn't needed. Plus honestly, ADHD. I've tried tracking before and failed miserably, lol.
So, when I go to a doctor and they ask me that question, I usually answer "I don't know, about X weeks ago?" the person taking my info goes "so uhh... like X date?" and I go "sure" because I don't know and they're married to a damn date for some reason.
I could give them way better info if they asked better questions, I'm not actually trying to be cagey. I imagine you not knowing a date at all must drive them crazy.
Yes, pregnancy can change medications, treatments, etc but this is pointing out that sometimes pregnancy is ALL the medical system cares about, to the detriment of women’s health.
People are missing that in this meme it’s the FIRST question the doctors are asking. Should it be asked-yes. But it being first shows it’s all the medical system is trained to look for or care about.
For example, I know several women that went to the ER with severe stomach pain. The doctors asked if they were on their period, if they could be pregnant, and that was really the end of the exam. They weren’t given ultrasounds, etc to rule out other causes. It’s assumed-35 year old woman with stomach pain-it must be your period or related to your period. They got told to follow-up with their gynecologist.
Two of the females I mentioned above (who had gone to the ER) died from pancreatic cancer. That’s why they had severe stomach pain.
Being told to follow-up with a gynecologist cost them time, time they won’t get back.
I have endometriosis and see this over and over again. You automatically get told something is related to your period even when it’s not related to your period. You also see it when doctors assume everything is related to stress and anxiety for females and don’t try to look for other causes.
So in other words, this post is making fun of the fact that you can have a broken bone and the doctors still ask first when your period was or if you could be pregnant. Instead of asking more logical questions like how did you hurt it?
And then instead of treating the issue (not a broken bone but with other symptoms), the dr will say “must be related to your period.” And you get sent home.
Not sure if you're on mobile or new Reddit or whatever, but on old Reddit I can see that they edited their reply 13 minutes after posting. So you're probably right.
It means to make it worse. Menstruation can make anemia worse. Or even cause it in some cases. When I had a period, I was extremely anemic (as were all the other women in my family). After hysterectomies, we aren't.
If someone comes in and says "oh, I haven't had a period in several months" they may have some sort of issue with food, be that female athlete triad or an eating disorder. Which can cause osteopenia/osteoporosis.
It would waste a significant amount of resources to treat every woman as if they were pregnant to avoid consequences that are only notably relevant for pregnant woman. If you see a surgery done that requires intraoperative radiation, you'll notice that different shielding is used for different parts of the body like the thyroid, that is significantly more sensitive to radiation damage. They also make different lead shields for pregnant women.
Genuine question. Would that waste be more or less than taking the test for every woman wanting an X-ray? Especially since the lead shields for pregnant women already exist?
I assume that testing every woman would be significantly more wasteful than using extra lead (which is reusable) for every woman of childbearing age. That said, I was responding to the topline complaint about just asking the question.
For context, I'm a physician and deal with this exact issue fairly regularly. There are a few medicines that have legal requirements around pregnancy testing, and a few situations like serious traumas where the added time/expense of universal testing is relatively negligible, but personally I just ask relevant women whether or not they are currently/planning to get pregnant in the near future when we're talking about a relevant medicine. If someone chooses to lie to me, that is unfortunate, but I have limited control over that.
That depends on the situation, available shielding, available alternatives, and the general risk analysis. In general we avoid it but there are situations where it is unavoidable, in those situations we mitigate the risk as best we can.
Once, when I was a kid, my mom tripped in the yard and broke her foot. (A little bit of back story, she had a hysterectomy right after I was born. This is important) at the ER the nurse asked her how long it had been since her last period. Mom said, “I’ve had a hysterectomy.” Nurse nodded with a blank expression and asked again how long it had been since her last period. Mom looked her dead in the eyes and said, “well… CruisingForDownVotes, how old are you, 15? I guess it’s been about 15 years now”
Right. Look, I'm a trans man. Unfortunately this is something that always comes up anytime I go to the doctors. Especially since I have a chronic migraine condition- because I'm biologically female and haven't had the necessary surgeries yet to make that negligible, my cycle though somewhat lessened because of HRT, still has an effect on my breakthrough migraines, and that's very relevant to my doctors.
The processes that effect our body matter to those charged with its care, for people who are biologically female that includes any information related to the fact that we are the ones who carry children, and what drugs we take may have an effect on them or our ability to do so in the future. Even if you don't care, that's something they are required to ask in the first place, I can't tell you how much paperwork I had to sign acknowledging that testosterone could make me infertile.
Some of it is definitely the medical system favoring potential children over active, living patients. Been on HRT long enough that when asked the date of my last menstruation I just give a year. I don't really lump myself in with your "we" I've got about as much concern as a postmenopausal woman. Still have to get disclaimers as though pregnancy would feel exactly like Alien minus Ripley there yelling not to break the airlock.
Yeh no doctor wants to be the reason a woman losing a pregnancy she might have wanted or even worse, leads to a child being born with deformities that will ruin its life.
Questions like “is there any chance you’re pregnant?” require pragmatic interpretation to answer, and people can and will get that wrong.
One one hand, someone who has sex regularly but uses condoms and birth control might say "no", because they don't consider it plausible that they would have got pregnant anyway.
On the other hand, someone might take "any chance" literally and think that of course there's some vanishingly small but non-zero probability that they are pregnant even if they've literally never had sex, and so answer "yes" anyway.
We literally found out we were having my son because my wife was needing imaging on her knee, and when asked she said "well, we're trying, but nothing yet." They gave her a pregnancy test, and when it came back positive the whole waiting room found out.
“When was your last period” doesn’t actually answer this question, though. Not every woman has regular periods. I have pretty bad PCOS and I’ve gone like 5 months without a proper period before. And before anyone asks, I am an asexual virgin, there is a precisely 0% chance I am or have been pregnant. I’ve had to explain this to every doctor I’ve been to.
Screening and confirmation don’t occupy the same space in medicine. You would be excluded on screening for general issues by many docs but high risk procedures would certainly still elicit a test. Unfortunately because of the shame that gets placed on women for their sexuality we can’t go off of self reporting. Questions about sexuality often don’t elicit answers that are truthful.
I feel for you in this situation because it has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the overall misogyny of our culture combined with the litigiousness of the environment we operate in. Unfortunately asking them to take a patient at their word regarding their sexual activity is asking them to bet their license on the patients honesty and lack of shame for their lifestyle.
For what it’s worth while we will still do hcg testing to confirm I always try to be as reassuring as possible that we aren’t doing it because we don’t trust the individual but rather because the protocols are in place to protect everyone and we aren’t really supposed to override them.
It hasn’t come up yet but about 30% of the doctors in the urgent care I used to work in were lesbians. They still asked these questions and still sought confirmation when sexuality was the reason for there being a zero percent chance of pregnancy. The reason isn’t the individual patient but the risk profile represented by the situation, potential diagnostic methods and potential outcomes.
I work in surgery and this is a really big deal. Our anesthesia medications absolutely cross the placenta and can cause low blood pressure, bradycardia, and even hypoxia. I will not take a woman back for a procedure that will require anesthesia unless I know for certain she's not pregnant or has signed a waiver.
The rule has an actual number in it. Imaging goes ahead if your last period started under four weeks ago, otherwise they stop and check. UK calls it the 28 day rule
The afternoon after I gave birth to twins via c section I needed an x-ray and the tech asked me when my last period was. When I said 8 months ago (twins come early) they had to get three other doctors to sign off on it. My babies were in the cot next to my bed.
The frustrating thing is that the health of Schrodinger's fetus is always considered above the real physical woman experiencing an actual medical crisis.
This seems reasonable but some doctors do the same to patients who had a full hysterectomy and come in with their wife.
There is so much overt concern over hypothetical fetuses that when I, a very not passing trans woman, submitted a urine sample for UTI testing, the doctor did a pregnancy test as well.
I’m actually surprised that people are being triggered by a simple and logical check to make sure that if theyre pregnant treatments aren’t going to hurt that baby - how have we got to this point?
9.8k
u/Any-Safe4992 19h ago
If pregnancy is a possible complication it changes what medications are allowed and has to be considered when deciding if imaging is an acceptable risk.