But now we find that the field of cardiology is being accused of "discrimination" on the basis of training duration, exposure to xrays, or work hours that are inflexible because of patient "emergencies" in the press.
I find it interesting that differences in vocational choice and marital status are considered discriminatory by our professional leadership:
"Discrimination based on gender and parenting is still prevalent. Female cardiologists remain less likely to be married or to have children."And yet, from the same article, we find our "discriminatory" field has accomplished the following:
"The number of female cardiologists and fellows has nearly doubled in the past decade since our last survey. Coincident with this, we have seen an increased emphasis upon and fulfillment from mentors, increased flexibility in work hours, and a universally high level of satisfaction with career and family."So we must now ask, what else we can do? Should we rid our profession of emergencies to better meet the needs of female cardiologists? Or perhaps we should shorten work hours to make life more "family friendly?"
Look, people's decisions regarding career choice must consider many factors. To suggest that the field of cardiology is "discriminatory" based on gender and marital status ignores the biologic differences in being a man or woman and casts a sexist pall on the inroads made to improve women's presence in our field.