Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women and Gynaecological Cancer: Gender and the Doctor–Patient Relationship

  • Published:
Topoi Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents evidence regarding aspects of the gendered nature of care women with gynaecological cancer receive from their (usually) male surgeons and oncologists in Australia. We argue that despite women’s general preference for female gynaecologists, those with a gynaecological cancer develop a strong therapeutic relationship with their male medical specialist, not extended to their (usually) female nurses and other allied health professionals. Given the highly sensitive and sexualized nature of gynaecological cancer, this requires explanation. These findings can be partly explained by examining the division of labour between nurses and doctors, specifically issues of control over this process and the development of specializations. The findings also bring into stark relief the way in which power and status differences can be used by medicine to create a positive therapeutic relationship with patients while simultaneously de-eroticizing the intimate procedures necessary in assisting women throughout their cancer treatment. Importantly, this relationship also has relevance for policy makers, particularly those concerned with the highly gendered division of labour of the medical specialty workforce in Australia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The AUSE106 socioeconomic index for Australia classifies Medicine as the most prestigious occupational group at 100 and nursing at 80.1.

  2. Only cervical cancer is linked to the papilloma virus. In Australia public health strategies tend towards down playing the link to sexually transmitted infection and the need for behavioural change, and focus instead on immunization which is free to all young women and girls and boys 12–13 year olds (NSW Cancer Council 2012). According to Braun and Gavery (1999) this is done as a strategy to avoid possible stigmatizing of women with cervical cancer, and the potential negative impact on engagement in screening.

References

  • Ackerman-Ross S, Sochat N (1980) Close encounters of the medical kind: attitudes towards male and female physicians. Soc Sci Med 14A:61–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] (2010) Gynaecological cancer projections 2010–2015. April. Cat.no.CAN 49. Canberra

  • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] 2012) Gynaecological cancers in Australia: an overview. AIHW, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman I, Henderson J, Willis E, Toffoli L (2015) After hours nurse staffing, work intensity and quality of care-missed care study: New South Wales, Final report to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation New South Wales. http://phamilton9.wix.com/insrnc#!recent-report/cqeg

  • Blomberg K, Forss A, Ternestidt B, Tishelman C (2009) From ‘silent’ to ‘heard’: professional mediation, manipulation and women’s experience of their body after an abnormal Pap smear. Soc Sci Med 688:479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton S (2005) Women’s work, dirty work: the gynaecological nurse as ‘Other’. Gend Work Organ 12(2):169–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth K, Beaver K, Kitchener H, O’Neill J, Farrell C (2004) Women’s experiences of information, psychological distress and worry after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Patient Educ Couns 56:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Gavery V (1999) With the best of reasons: cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information. Soc Sci Med 48:1463–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancer Australia and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (CA & RACOG) (2011) National gynaecological cancers service delivery and resource framework. Cancer Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Chur-Hansen A (2001) Preferences for female and male nurses: the role of age, gender and previous experience–year 2000 compared with 1984. J Adv Nurs 37(2):192–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cioffi J (2004) Caring for Women from culturally diverse backgrounds: midwives’ experiences. J Midwifery Women’s Health 49(5), http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489507. Cited 15 Jan 2013

  • Fisher W, Bryan A, Dervaitis K, Silcoz J, Kohn H (2002) It ain’t necessarily so: most women do not strongly prefer female obstetrician-gynecologists. J Gynaecol Cancer 11:885–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Galasinski D, Ziolkowska J (2007) Gender and the gynecological examination: women’s identities in doctor’s narratives. Qual Health Res 17(4):477–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray J (1982) The effect of the doctor’s sex on the doctor–patient relationship. Women’s Health 32:167–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiffre P, Williams C (2010) Not just bodies: strategies for desexualising the physical examination of patients. Gend Soc 14(3):457–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Health Engine (2011) Female gynaecologist oncologists in australia. http://healthengine.com.au/search_interest.php?q=Gynaecological+Oncology&l=&suburb=&gender=F&language=&km=. Cited 13 Jan 2012

  • Health Workforce Australia (2012) Medical specialties, vol 3. HWA, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  • Henslin J, Biggs M (1971) Dramaturgical desexulization the sociology of the vaginal examination. In: Henslin J, Sagarin E (eds) The sociology of sex: and introductory reader. Schocken Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A, Schnatz P, Kelsey A, Ohannessian C (2005) Do women prefer care from female or male obstetrician-gynecologists? A study of patient gender preference. JAOA 105(8):369–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerssens J, Bensign J, Andela M (1997) Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Soc Sci Med 44:1531–1540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King D, Martin W, Dwyer J, Healy J, Owada K, Smith L, Sun L, Van Deth A, Wainer J, Willis E (2008) Review of the gynacological cancers workforce. Report to Cancer Australia, National Institute of Labour Studies, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk M, Hoban E, Dunne A, Manderson L (1999) Barriers to and appropriate delivery systems for cervical cancer screening in Indigenous communities in Queensland: final report. Australian Centre for International & Tropical Health & Nutrition, Herston

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer J (2000) The conduct of care. Blackwell Sciences, Ltd, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler J (2006) Behind the screens, nursing, somology and the problem of the body. Sydney University Press, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge N, Mallett J, Blake P, Frayatt I (1997) A study to ascertain gynaecological patients’ perceived levels of embarrassment with physical and psychological care given by female and male nurses. J Adv Nurs 25:893–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund J, Roher J, Goldfarb S (2005) Patient gender preferences in a large military teaching hospital. Obstet Gynaecol 105:747–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton D (1997) Doctors on the medical profession. Sociol Health Illn 19(4):480–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manderson L (2004) Boundary breaches: the body, sex and sexuality after stoma surgery. Soc Sci Med 61:405–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maughan K, Clarke C (2001) The effect of a clinical nurse specialists on quality of life and sexuality. J Clin Nurs 10:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan J, Beavis A, Jones F (2009) The AUSE106: a new socioeconomic index for Australia. J Sociol 45(2):123–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Cancer Council (2012) Cervical cancer and HPV vaccine fact sheet. http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=253#3 Cited 7 Jan 2012

  • Nichols S (1987) Women’s preferences for sex of doctor: a postal survey. J R Coll Gen Pract 37:540–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong I, Visser M, Lammes F, de Haes J (2000) Doctor–patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 41:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle R (1998) Sex and medicine: gender, power and authority in the medicine profession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reath J, Usherwood T (1998) Improving cervical screening in a remote aboriginal community. Aust N Z J Public Health 22(6):659–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2014) Activities report. www.ranzcog.edu.au Cited 5 April 2015

  • Stumpers S, Thomson N (2009) Review of cancer among Indigenous peoples. http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/chronic-conditions/cancer/reviews/our-review Cited 6 Feb 2012

  • Vick S, Scott A (1998) Agency and health care. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor–patient relationship. J Health Econ 17:587–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer J (2004) Work of female rural doctors. Aust J Rural Health 12(2):49–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P (1999) Changing the palace guard: analyzing the impact of women’s entry into medicine. Gend Work Organ 6(2):106–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis E (1983) Medical dominance: the division of labour in Australian health care. Allen and Unwin, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis E (2006) Introduction: taking stock of medical dominance in medicine medical dominance revisited. Health Sociol Rev Spec Issue 15(5):421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis E (2010) Accelerating control: an ethnographic account of micro economic reform on the work of health professional in Australia. LAP, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray N, Markovic M, Manderson L (2007) Discourses of normality and difference: responses to diagnosis and treatment of gynaecological cancer of Australian women. Soc Sci Med 64:2260–2271

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by Cancer Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, Social Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Eileen Willis

  2. School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Debra King

  3. School of Medicine, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Judith Dwyer

  4. Eastern Health Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Jo Wainer

  5. Children’s Health and Environment Program, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Level 7, Centre for Children’s Health Research Building, 62 Graham Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia

    Kei Owada

  6. Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia

    Kei Owada

Authors
  1. Eileen Willis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debra King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith Dwyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jo Wainer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kei Owada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen Willis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willis, E., King, D., Dwyer, J. et al. Women and Gynaecological Cancer: Gender and the Doctor–Patient Relationship. Topoi 36, 509–519 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9349-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9349-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation